Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs):
A Training Workbook for Working People
PRODUCED BY
The Labor Institute, NYC
Funded by a grant from the New York State Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Training and Education Program,'
Contract Number: C006029
Table of Contents
A Training Program for Working People on Electromagnetic Fields . . 1
Activity 1: Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) .... 7
Task: 7
Activity 2: What Are Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)? 9
Task 1: 9
2-1. What Are Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)? 10
2-2. What Are Electric Fields? 11
2-3. What Are Magnetic Fields? 12
2-4. Electromagnetic Fields Are NOT All the Same 13
2-5. The Different Kinds of Electromagnetic Fields 14
2-6. Ionizing Versus Non-Ionizing Radiation 15
2- 7. How Strong Are Electric and Magnetic Fields? 17
Summary 18
Activity 3: Can Electromagnetic Fields Hurt Us? 21
Task 1: 21
3- 1. Congress Is Being Told That EMFs Have Biological Effects . 22
3-2. More Testimony on the Biological Effects of EMFs .... 23
3-3. A Major Government Agency Says There Are Biological Effects 25
Task 2: 28
3-4. Results of Epidemiologic Studies of Workers in Electrical
Occupations 30
Chart 1: Risk for All Types of Leukemias for "All Electrical
Occupations;" Results of Eight Studies 31
Chart 2: Risk of Leukemia for Line Technicians; Results
of Six Studies 32
Chart 3: Risk of Brain Cancer Among Electricians; Results
of Five Studies 33
3-5. What Do the Electromagnetic Field Studies Tell Us? ... 34
3-5.1. The Residential Studies 34
3-5.2. The Occupational Studies 35
3-5.3. The Biological Studies 36
3-6. Ask Dr. M. About EMFs 37
Summary 39
Activity 4: What Do We Do About Electromagnetic Fields? .... 41
Task 1: Policy Debate 41
Task 2: Local Plan of Action 43
4-1. Are There Important EMF Court Cases? 44
4-2. What Is Business Doing About EMFs? 46
4-2.1. Some companies are changing their equipment 46
4-2.2. Companies are sponsoring "mitigation" research to
make EMF exposure less severe 47
4-3. What Are Unions Doing About EMFs? 48
4-3.1. Unions are bargaining for contract language that may relate
to EMF exposure 48
4-3.2. One union formed a joint working group 50
4-3.3. Unions are trying to get their workers monitored 51
4-3.4. An arbitration board ruled for shielding the workforce .... 51
4-3.5. Unions are educating their members about possible EMF
control measures 52
4-3.6. Municipal unions in NYC have won rules to limit EMF exposures . . 53
4-3.7. Local unions can develop solid ideas about what to do about EMFs . 54
4-4. What Is Happening on the Residential Front? 57
4-4.1. Landowners are demanding that a utility buy their homes .... 57
44.2. Teachers are wearing meters to monitor EMFs 57
4-4.3. Residents are proposing that electric companies investigate design
changes and widen right of way 58
44.4. Voters approve first citizens' initiative restricting power lines ... 58
44.5. Three states are studying ways to reduce EMFs from high-voltage
power lines 59
4-4.6. Town council is first in banning all new power lines above 60 Kv
for three years 60
4-5. Are There Electromagnetic Fields Standards? ..... 61
Summary 63
Appendices
Ten Things You Need To Know About EMFs A-l
Articles from Science A-3
Excerpt from University of California at Berkeley Wellness Letter A-13
COSH Groups A-15
ii
A Training Program for Working People
on Electromagnetic Fields
Why Is This Training Taking Place?
Evidence has emerged which raises questions about the health effects
on workers of seemingly harmless electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
emitted by power lines, electrical equipment and computer
terminals. We now know that these fields are not harmless and that
many workers and their families may be exposed to potentially
dangerous electromagnetic fields.
Until now, no training program existed for working people on this
issue. Although there are several good popular booklets on EMFs,
there were no training materials for workers to educate each other on
this very pressing matter.
The New York State Department of Labor Hazard Abatement Unit
provided funding so that the Labor Institute could develop a training
workbook and videotape on electromagnetic fields for working
people around New York State.
What Is the Labor Institute?
The Labor Institute is a non-profit framing and research organization,
located in New York City, that provides innovative worker-oriented
educational programs to unions and community groups around the
United States. The six-person staff of the Labor Institute are
members of OCAW (Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers) Local 8-149.
For more information about Institute programs and materials,
and/ or about this workbook, contact: The Labor Institute,
853 Broadway, Room 2014, New York, New York 10003;
212-674-3322.
1
How Was This Training Program Developed?
A group of 14 workers involved in safety and health issues in their
local unions around New York were brought together to assist the
Labor Institute in developing a training program on electromagnetic
fields. These "worker-consultants" met with Labor Institute staff to
listen to experts, to discuss and debate the results of different studies
on the health effects of EMFs, and to develop plans of action and
comment in detail on the many drafts of the curriculum. Some have
tested this curriculum with their own members. Others have used
segments of it in informational meetings with co-workers.
We thank the following worker-consultants for their help in the
creation of this training curriculum:
Michael Arvanites, IBEW Local 503
Walter Birney, IBEW Local 589
Andrew Caputo, TWU Local 100
Steve Carney, CWA Local 1103
John Gentile, CWA Local 1103
Robert Karpf, IBEW Local 589
Ronald Lent, IBEW Local 503
Francis Leonard, IBEW Local 1049
Evelyn McDonnel, UAW District 65
Daniel Morales, IBEW Local 503
Jim O'Hare, CWA Local 1118
Debbie Rothman, UAW District 65
Floyd Thornton, IBEW Local 1049
Ralph Zoccolillo, CWA Local 1103
2
We also want to thank the following individuals for their
contribution to the development of the curriculum:
Gary Cwitco, Communications & Electrical Workers of Canada
Roger Cook, WNYCOSH
Norm Danzig, NYCOSH
David Dembo, Council on International and Public Affairs
Marsha Love, CWA District 1
Dr. Steve Markowitz, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine
Mark Pinsky, Microwave News and Pagemark
Eric Scherzer, OCAW Local 8-149
Diane Stein, NYCOSH
Lisa Watson, NYCOSH
Additional thanks to Charles Barrett and Bob Kirkman at UA W
District 65 for providing space for our curriculum development
meetings.
The Labor Institute staff members who compiled this curriculum are
Cydney Pullman, Curriculum Director; Howard Saunders, Art
Director; Cydney Wilkes, Desktop Publisher.
3
What Is the Small Group Activity Method?
This training package uses the Small Group Activity Method
(SGAM)to teach about electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The Small
Group Activity Method is a participatory, non-lecture training
method which is worker-oriented. The Labor Institute uses this
teaching approach to train workers to be trainers themselves and has
shared this method with over 200 different unions and community
groups in the United States and Canada.
The Small Group Activity Method puts the learner in the center of
the workshop. Participants are put to work in the workshop solving
real-life problems, building upon their own skills and experiences.
Instead of learning-by-listening passively, we learn by doing.
Basic Structure
The Small Group Activity Method is based on Activities. An activity
can take from 30 minutes to an hour. Each activity has a common
basic structure: Small Group Tasks, Report-Back, and Summary.
1. Small Group Task: The workshop always operates with people
working in groups at tables. Each activity has a task, or set of tasks,
for the group to work on. The idea is to work together using each
others' experiences to tackle problems and make judgements on key
issues. Part of the task often involves looking at factsheets and
reading short handouts to develop an opinion on an issue.
2. The Report-back: For each task, the group selects a scribe whose
job it is to take notes on the small group discussion and report back
to the workshop as a whole. The trainer records these reports on
large pads of paper in front of the workshop so that all may refer to
it. After the report-back the workshop is thrown open to general
discussion about the problem at hand.
3. The Summary: Before the discussion drifts too far and wide, the
trainer needs to bring it all together during the Summary. Here, the
trainer highlights the key points, and brings up any problems and
points that might have been overlooked in the Report-back.
4
How To Use This Workbook
This Workbook consists of four small group activities:
• Introduction to EMFs
• What Are EMFs?
• Can EMFs Hurt Us?
• What Can We Do About Them?
The introductory activity is brief, taking only about a half hour, but
the other activities require one hour to work through the materials
and discuss them adequately. And, if you show the videotape that
accompanies this workbook at the start, the total time for the full EMF
training program is four hours.
If you can arrange to train a group of workers over, say, four
one-hour sessions or in one long four hour workshop, that is great.
However, it is also possible to pick and choose among activities and
factsheets to fit even a one hour informational session on EMFs.
No matter how long the training session, here are some suggestions
for preparing yourself and the trainees:
• There are some articles about EMFs in Appendix 3 which you
may want to copy and mail to participants ahead of time. Or,
you may want to send the entire curriculum.
• No one knows all the answers on EMFs, so if you or others
have any questions, take note of them and please contact the
Labor Institute for assistance.
• Some room set-up suggestions: Arrange tables so groups are
far enough apart that they do not disrupt each other;
Remember large paper to write responses on, markers, tape,
a VCR and monitor for videotaping; Name tags.
• Some trainer preparation suggestions: Spend a few hours
preparing the day before the training session; Go over in
detail what activities you are going to do and who is going to
do what in each activity (for example, someone can write
responses while another leads the discussion); Review the
factsheets and charts, so you know which ones you want to
emphasize in the summary.
5
• Introducing the activity: Introduce yourself; Have people
introduce themselves; Briefly explain the training method;
Read the purpose of the activity; Move people into small
groups as soon as possible; Explain the role of the reporter or
scribe and rotate this role with each activity.
• Small Group discussion: Be available to help, but don't
interfere; Help a group that is stuck or lost; Cut off discussior
before they are done, but not too soon.
• The Report-back: Decide how you'll get information from
each group (one item from each group or what?); Record
responses on tear off pad; Don't put words in people's
mouths; Don't slip into being a lecturer; End discussion
before it drags on too long.
• Summary: Remember to congratulate the group on all they
were able to come up with on their own; Highlight a few
main points people might have missed. Don't repeat the
entire summary list; Summarize the main points you were
trying to get across in the Activity.
Good Luck!
6
Activity 1: Introduction to Electromagnetic
Fields (EMFs)
Purpose:
To share our concerns and questions about how electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) might affect our members.
Task:
Take about 10 minutes to discuss the following question with the
people sitting next to you. Jot down some notes on what you
discuss. One of you should be prepared to present a brief summary
of your discussion to the whole group.
What concerns you and your members about EMFs? Please list
your concerns.
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
Activity 2: What Are Electromagnetic Fields
(EMFs)?
Purpose: ^
To understand some basic concepts about electromagnetic fields.
Task 1:
Please read the following statement. Then in your groups go over
Factsheets 2-1 through 2-7 together. One person in each group should
be selected to keep notes on your discussion. That person can also
report back on your discussion for the workshop as a whole.
You are asked by your union's executive board to give a
five-minute presentation on electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at your
next union meeting. Specifically, they want to know what they are
(not what they might do to you). Prepare a five minute "rap" for the
union meeting on "what are EMFs?" referring to at least one
factsheet.
What are the key ideas that your members need to know about
EMFs?
Refer to at least one factsheet in preparing your presentation.
1.
2.
3.
9
Activity 2
2-1. What Are Electromagnetic
Fields (EMFs)?
Wherever electric current is flowing there are electric and magnetic
fields. That means that there are fields created by large and small
power lines, lighting fixtures and wiring in our homes and our
workplaces, electrical equipment at work, and all electrical
appliances.
Electric and magnetic fields exist in all living things. They occur
naturally in the atmosphere. For example, powerful electric fields
are produced when thunderclouds discharge electricity through
lightning. And the earth itself is magnetically charged, making travi
by compass readings possible.
We can think of EMFs as invisible lines of force. They are like
waves created by a stone tossed in a pond. Electromagnetic waves
radiate through space at the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles pe
second.
EMFs consist of two fields, electric and magnetic, which move at
right angles to each other.
10
Activity 2
2-2. What Are Electric Fields?
Electric fields are invisible lines of force which result when two
different electric charges come close to one another causing electric
current to flow. An electric field loses intensity (strength) when you
move away from it. The strength of an electric field depends on
voltage and is measured in volts per meter (V/m). One thousand
volts per meter is a kilovolt per meter (kV/m).
One of the strongest electric fields encountered by workers is under
high voltage transmission lines. Workers, such as electronic switch
technicians working for telephone companies, may also be exposed
to strong fields.
Electric fields can be shielded or reduced in strength so that exposure
is limited.
1 1
Activity 2
2-3. What Are Magnetic Fields?
Electric currents produce magnetic fields. A magnetic field is an
invisible line of force which may be imagined as a set of loops
encircling an electrical line. Magnetic field strength depends on th
amount of the current (amperage) and is measured in milligauss
(mG.) Sometimes they are measured in tesla (T).
Workers may be exposed to strong magnetic fields if they are arou
high voltage transmission lines. Strong magnetic fields are also
generated by processes that use high currents, such as arc-welding
induction heating and some electric motors. And, magnetic fields
have been measured around VDTs, video display terminals.
Although magnetic fields fall off as we move away from them, the
cannot be shielded easily and are therefore potentially more
dangerous.
12
Activity 2
2-4. Electromagnetic Fields Are
NOT All the Same
Electromagnetic fields differ depending upon the frequency,
wavelength, and intensity of the field.
Frequency is the number of waves passing a point in one
second.
The length of a wave is its wavelength.
Intensity is the strength of the wave.
The number of times the waves of an EMF move back and forth
(alternate) in one second is its frequency. The electric power used in
North America alternates (it is AC or alternating current) 60 times
each second. This is called 60 hertz (Hz) power. We are mostly
concerned in this training program with the impact of this 60 Hz field
on workers. This is called ELF (extremely low frequency) EMFs
(electromagnetic fields).
There is also a form of EMF called Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields.
These fields produce energy in the form of "packets" or "blips" in
which the EMF is turned on and off over and over again. These
pulsed fields are different from powerline fields which are constant.
Pulsed EMFs are emitted from VDTs. The evidence shows that
pulsed EMFs are more damaging biologically than constant
electromagnetic radiation. 1
Bob DeMatteo, Terminal Shock, Toronto: New Canada Press, 1985.
13
Activity 2
2-5. The Different Kinds of
Electromagnetic Fields
The electromagnetic spectrum is arranged according to frequency.
Wavelength figures are given to show that frequency and
wavelength are inversely related - as one increases the other
decreases.
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Type of Radiation
Frequency
(Hertz)*
Wavelength
(Meters)
Non-ionizing Radiation
Extremely Low
Frequency (ELF)
Very Low
Frequency (VLF)
ShortWave
AM Radio
1
60
100
10,000
1,000,000
300,000,000*
3,000,000
30,000
300
Workers Affected
Microwaves & TV
FM Radio
Radar
100,000,000
10,000,000,000
3
.03 (one inch)
Infrared
1,000,000,000,000
.0003
Visible Light
10 14 (+ 14 zeros)
.000003
Tnniyino' Radiation
Ultraviolet***
10 16
.00000003
X-rays
10 18
.0000000003
10 20
.0000000000003
Gamma rays
10 22
.000000000000003
Cosmic rays
10 24
.00000000000000003
Power line workei
Electrical workers
Office workers
Electrical equipme
workers
Communications
workers
Office workers
Short wave and
radio operators
Microwave, TV
workers
Radar operators
Medical technicia
Atomic workers
*Hertz = cycles per second.
** The speed of light (and electromagnetic waves) is 186,000 miles per second which is the basis
our measurements of frequency and wavelength; 300,000,000 meters is equal to 186,000 miles.
*** Ultraviolet radiation is actually on the dividing line between ionizing and non-ionizing rad:
14
Activity 2
2-6. Ionizing Versus Non-Ionizing
Radiation 2
We need to know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing
radiation because it was always thought that only ionizing radiation
could hurt us. Now, we know that non-ionizing radiation may cause
health problems too. 3
Ionizing radiation includes high-frequency forms of radiation such as
x-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays. When something is "ionized" it
becomes electrically charged. 4 When ionization occurs within a
living cell, the chemical structure of the cell can be changed.
Exposure to ionizing radiation can damage our cells. It may damage
DNA, the genetic material in our cells, causing severe illness and /or
death.
This factsheet draws on "A Worker's Guide to Electromagnetic Radiation" by Paul A.
Landsbergis and Eric Scherzer, OCAW District 8 Resource Center.
As a recent report by the U.S. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) states:
"Although as recently as a few years ago, scientists stated that available evidence showed no
health risks from power frequency fields, emerging evidence no longer allows a categorical
denial that risks exist."
When an atom carries a positive or negative charge it is called an ion. If an atom is ionized it
is no longer a part of the molecule it came from. Ionization produces a chemical change in a
substance.
15
2-6. (continued)
What is Non-ionizing Radiation?
Non-ionizing radiation is the low-frequency form of radiation su<
as visible light, infrared, microwave, radio frequency, very low
frequency (VLF) and extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation.
Although these types of radiation do not alter the atoms they stri
some, such as microwaves, can cause burns and possible damage
the reproductive system.
ELF fields, such as those created by 60 Hz alternating electric cun
(AC), have subtle biological effects as we shall see.
16
Activity 2
2-7. How Strong Are Electric and Magnetic
Fields?
Fields around appliances like toasters, hair dryers, and refrigerators
decrease rapidly at even short distances from the device. And users
are only exposed briefly to these fields each day.
In contrast, power line fields from distribution lines and transmission
lines are more pervasive. Both residents and workers are exposed for
longer periods of time.
A recent study using a dosimeter (a new device which measures 60
Hz fields) found the following average and peak levels among a
group of electric utility workers during work:
Electric Field (V/m)
Magnetic Field (mG)
Average
Peak
Average
Peak
Lineman (distribution)
62.5
416.2
14.5
54.0
Apparatus electrician
(transmission)
181.7
1756.3
34.4
184.8
Lineman (transmission)
418.9
1430.0
13.1
35.1
Splicer (distribution)
6.7
15.7
20.8
171.2
Apparatus mechanic
4.7
6.7
11.8
51.7
Many studies suggest that these ranges of exposure may be unsafe.
Although we do not have dosimeter readings for other workers
exposed to EMFs we know that their exposure is significant also.
J.E. Deadman, et al v "Occupational and residential 60 Hz electromagnetic fields and
high-frequency electric transients: Exposure assessment using a new dosimeter," American
Journal of Industrial Hygiene, vol. 49, no. 8, 1988, pp. 409-419; as excerpted in Paul Landsbergis
and Eric Scherzer, "A Worker's Guide to Electromagnetic Radiation," OCAW District 8
Resource Center.
17
Activity 2
Activity 2: Summary
What are Electromagnetic Fields?
1. Electromagnetic fields are "invisible lines of force." Wherever
there is electrical current, there are EMFs. They are made up o:
electric and magnetic fields.
2. Electric fields are created when one electric charge exerts a
positive or negative force on another. They are measured in vc
(V) and can be shielded.
3. Magnetic fields exist wherever there is electric current. They ai
measured in milligauss and can NOT be shielded easily.
4. Both magnetic and electric fields fall off rapidly with distance.
5. EMFs vary according to wavelength, frequency, and intensity.
6. The Electromagnetic Spectrum provides a perspective on the
whole range of EMFs starting with ELF (extremely low f requer
EMF and ending with very high frequency cosmic rays.
7. Ionizing radiation is higher frequency electromagnetic waves
which can cause severe damage to cells. High doses can kill us
18
Activity 2
8. Non-ionizing radiation is at the lower frequency end of the
spectrum and although it was previously thought to present no
risk to humans, it is now recognized to have biological effects.
9. Finally, the strengths of electric and magnetic fields vary widely.
Appliances have strong fields, but we are not around them for a
long time. However, power lines, for example, may expose
workers over the course of their whole work day, which may be
unsafe.
19
Activity 3: Can Electromagnetic Fields
Hurt Us?
Purpose:
To review material about the potential biological effects of EMF on
our bodies. To examine occupational and other studies on the effects
of EMF exposure on our health.
Task 1:
The Biological Effects of EMFs
Read Factsheets 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 and 3-5.3 (Biological Studies). They contain
excerpts taken from recent testimony before the U.S. Congress on the
biological effects of EMF, excerpts from a comprehensive government
study on EMF and a chart on biological studies on EMF.
In your small group, assign different factsheets to separate workers
(they are lengthy) and then, as a group, develop a list of points you
would make in a discussion with a co-worker about the biological
effects of EMF. Select a person to take notes and reportback to the
group as a whole.
List the key points you would make to a co-worker about the
biological effects of electromagnetic fields on cells:
1.
2.
3.
21
Activity 3
3-1. Congress Is Being Told That EMFs Ha\
Biological Effects
The following is an edited transcript of Congressional Oversight
Hearings on Electric Powerlines: Health and Public Policy
Implications which were held on March 8, 1990:
Mr. Kostmayer: 6 Welcome Mr. Dodge, would you like to
begin?
Mr. Dodge: Yes, thank you. I am Christopher Dodge and I
with the Congressional Research Service, the Library of
Congress. I have been tracking the biological and health eff
of electromagnetic fields since 1962 and have continued to c
so over the last 4 or 5 years.
First, I think it is important to point out that the Soviet and
European countries have been studying this issue for about
years. The first paper I am aware of came out in 1933 and si
then there has been a proliferation of research into the subj(
I think it is fair to say that the Soviet and East European
researchers are absolutely convinced that low level power
frequencies are biologically active.
The issue of what the health implications of these effects an
remains a little bit vague. Ten years ago we were not [even"
talking about health effects of low level power frequency
electromagnetic fields. We were a silent minority. One of i
colleagues said recently that we were sort of the "lunatic
fringe," because some of us believed that there was someth
going on.
Today, I think it is safe to say that most of the bioelectro-
magnetic research community believes that low level pov
frequency electromagnetic fields are biologically active.
This is the Honorable Peter J. Kostmayer, chairperson of the subcommittee on General
Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee of the Interior.
22
Activity 3
3-2. More Testimony on the Biological
Effects of EMFs:
The following is based on the edited testimony of Dr. William Ross
Adey 7 before Congress on July 25, 1990:
EMFs Can Affect Our Immune System.
The body's immune system is the fortress built by nature against
infection and the creeping claws of cancer. Reduced immune
competence is therefore followed by dire consequences for the
individual, whether it results from aging, from the ravages of
infection such as AIDS, or from environmental chemical pollution.
Lymphocytes (cells produced by the lymph system) of the immune
system can be "targeted" against tumor cells, destroying them by
breaking their covering membranes on contact.
In studies with cell cultures, fields simulating 60 Hz high voltage
powerline fields can reduce the killing capacity (cytotoxicity) of
lymphocytes targeted against cancer cells. These fields also disrupt
activity of enzymes that act as internal messengers inside
lymphocytes.
In terms of human exposures and epidemiological studies, these and
related findings offer an important bridge to reports of reduced
immunity, with increased risks of lymphomas and other
malignancies.
Dr. Adey is Associate Chief of Staff for research and development at Pettis Memorial V.A.
Medical Center at Loma Linda, California. For the past 15 years, Dr. Adey has played a
pioneering role in understanding how body cells "whisper" to one another and in so doing has
discovered some of the keys to understanding how EMFs have biological effects.
23
Activity 3
3-2. (continued)
EMFs May Promote Cancer.
Available evidence indicates that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) d
not function as classical initiators in tumor formation by causing
damage to DNA and gene mutation in cell nuclei. However, they
may function as promoters, by reason of their actions on cell
membranes that form a closing envelope around all cells.
Research has established that the main site of action of
electromagnetic fields is at cell membranes. Many chemical tumc
promoters also act at cell membranes. They include insecticides
(DDT), polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) formerly used as electri<
insulators and coolants, tobacco and certain other plant substance
associated with human cancer.
Studies show that the joint actions of chemical cancer promoters c
electromagnetic fields at cell membranes leads to uncontrolled
growth. We know that chemical cancer promoters disrupt the
"whispering together" between normal cells. Actions of these
promoters are enhanced by weak EMFs, but there may be no effe
of fields alone.
These findings imply that electromagnetic fields may act jointly
with chemical cancer initiators and/or promoters, including
environmental pollutants, to disrupt normal communication
between cells, leading to uncontrolled cancer cell growth. 8
These findings offer an important bridge to other studies that have emphasized enhance
cancer risk for those exposed to chemical carcinogens and electromagnetic fields, includ
occurrence of brain tumors in microwave workers, brain tumors in children with father:
electrical occupations, lymphomas in workers in aluminum reduction plants, and a higr
cancer risk in telephone workers exposed to electromagnetic fields and chemical toxins
Please note that this section has been edited to simplify it.
24
3-3. A Major Government Agency Says There
Are Biological Effects
The following information is from the Office of Technology
Assessment's (OTA, a research arm of Congress) Report on
Electromagnetic Fields. 9 Most of what we know today about the
effects of exposure to power frequency (60 Hz EMF) fields comes
from two types of experiments: cell-level and animal experiments
Cell-Level Experiments Provide Evidence of Biological
Effects
A considerable body of evidence has emerged that points to the cell
membrane as the primary site of interaction between ELF (extremely
low frequency) fields and the cell. The cell's membrane serves as the
boundary and maintains the structure of the cell. It is also
responsible for transmitting information arriving at its surface to the
cell interior so that appropriate life processes can take place.
EMFs Affect Calcium Flow
Calcium flow regulates such processes as muscle contraction, egg
fertilization and cell division. The quantity and the rate of calcium
ion transport are important. Calcium flows also regulate certain
enzymes which are found on the surface of nerve cells. The unusual
behavior of calcium flow from cell membranes in brain tissue was the
first clear effect of ELF fields observed in biological tissue.
Excerpted from U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electric Power Wheeling and
Dealing: Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition, OTA-E-409 (Washington, DC,
U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1989).
25
Activity 3
3-3. (continued)
EMFs Affect Communication Between Cells
Recent research has demonstrated unequivocally that under certain
circumstances, the membranes of cells are sensitive to externally
imposed low-frequency electromagnetic fields, even when the fields'
intensity is much weaker than the cell membrane's natural fields
Consequently, processes that are governed by the cell membrane
such as the cell's capacity to recognize other cells, may be candidates
for disruption by field exposure.
EMFs Can Interfere With Our Genes
Well-studied cancer-initiating agents, such as ionizing radiation and
chemicals, cause direct damage to DNA by mutations. ELF fields do
not have enough energy to disrupt the structure of DNA. However
research has shown that exposure to fields may interfere with RNA
transcription (the RNA transcribes DNA command codes into
proteins).
26
Activit/ 3
3-3. (continued)
Animal Experiments Show Biological Effects Too
Animal systems have been examined under a range of electric and
magnetic field conditions. Animals such as rats, mice, swine, cows,
guinea pigs and chicken eggs have been studied.
EMFs May Affect Reproduction
Most of the studies attempting to examine developmental effects of
ELF field exposure have concluded that no overt defects and
malformations resulted from the exposure. However, some studies
have seen subtle effects and the possibility of the existence of an
effect remains an open question.
EMFs Affect the Central Nervous System
Studies have found that developing nervous systems may be
particularly susceptible and effects may be manifested only in
specific situations or later in time.
EMFs Affect Circadian Systems of Animals and Humans
ELF experiments on the effects of electric and magnetic fields on
circadian systems (biological clock) of humans, primates and other
animals indicate a definite effect. It is not clear whether such effects
are harmful or long-lasting. Disruption of the circadian systems can
cause disorders such as altered sensitivity to drugs and toxins and
chronic depression.
27
Activity 3
Task 2:
The Health Effects of EMFs
Read the following hypothetical statement by a worker on why
he/she is skeptical about the health effects of EMFs.
"Okay, so 111 give you that EMFs can have some effect on a
cell, but that's a long way from saying that it's gonna hurt me
or kill me. What's the proof? Have they looked at workers
like us and figured we'll be affected? And anyway, what are
we talking about, one chance outta 10,000. Me and my
buddies are on the line all day and we're okay."
What would you say to this worker? Please look over Factsheet 3-4,
which describes some basic concepts that will help you understand
Charts 1, 2, and 3. Then see Factsheet 3-5 (3-5.1 and 3-5.2), which
presents a summary of the critical residential and occupational
studies for your information. Also, Factsheet 3-6 provides some
answers to commonly asked questions about EMF.
What would you say to a co-worker about whether EMFs can hurt
him/her? Refer to specific factsheets on the studies, and the graphs.
1.
2.
28
continued
Activity 3
4
29
Activity 3
3-4. Results of Epidemiologic Studies of
Workers in Electrical Occupations
The following charts summarize some of the epidemiologic studies
that have been conducted to date. They show the potential risk for
workers in the occupations indicated compared to the general
population. The following information may assist you m reading the
charts:
Risk refers to the chances of developing a particular disease in
your lifetime. Being at risk for a disease means that you have
some exposure that makes the development of the disease
more likely. So, for example, if a study shows that electrical
workers' risk is 3.8 times higher than the general population
that means that they are almost four times as likely to develop
leukemia (Refer to #3 in Chart 1) than the general population.
General Population refers to that portion of the population
assumed not to be at particular risk for the disease being
studied. The general population is assumed to have relatively
low exposure, if any. The rates of disease in the general
population are used to predict how many people in a group of
workers would be expected to get sick if they were not exposed.
Epidemiologic studies are scientific studies of who gets
diseases and why. We examine exposures to toxins or other
risk factors for disease among large groups of people m order
to determine how important these exposures might be m
causing disease.
30
Activity 3
Chart 1: Risk for All Types of Leukemias for
"All Electrical Occupations:"
Results of Eight Studies 10
r4E
t 2
U 3
-I
"I
"I
"I
IP 1 1 0 General Population |
17 limes higher
|P 1 2 53 times higher |
P 3 8 times higher |
1 3 0 times higher
1 1 23 times higher
1 62 times higher
^ 1 1.28 times higher
| 98 times higher"
EE
EE
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Risk of Leukemia
3.0
3.5
4.0
Studies:
1: Pearce(1985)
2: Gilman (1985) 11
3: Flodin (19861
4: Stern (1986) 17
5: Juutilainen (1988)
6: Pearce (1989)
7: Wright (1982)
8: McDowall (1983)
Note that the following charts consist of measures of risk which have been transformed to
allow expression of risk in units indicated. For more details on the individual studies, contact
the Labor Institute or Dr. Steven Markowitz at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.
Miners, presumed EMF exposure only.
Shipyard electricians only.
31
Activity 3
Chart 2: Risk of Leukemia for
Line Technicians:
Results of Six Studies
s 1
u
e 4
-2
-1
-2
0 General Population
-I
a
1 .43 times higher
~p 1 1 .9 times higher
1 1 4 times higher
p| 1 3.1 times higher
~P 1 2.3S times higher |
8.2 times higher
jp 1 1 34 times higher
I I I I I ?
Risk of Leukemia
Studies:
t Calle & Savitz (1985), acute leukemia.
2: Linet (1988), chronic lymphocyte leukemia.
3: Juutilainen (1988) 13 , leukemia.
4: Pearce, et al. (1989), leukemia.
5: Wright (1982), acute myeloid leukemia.
6: McDowall (1983), acute myeloid leukemia.
13
Linemen and cable joiners.
32
Activity 3
Chart 3: Risk of Brain Cancer Among
Electricians:
Results of Five Studies
t
1
u
d 2
i
-s
-I
-I
-%
5E
ijj 1 1 0 General Population I
i
i higher l
Ip 1 1 .8 times higher
|p 1 1 9 times higher |
3 1 2.0 times higher
g g
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Risk of Brain Cancer
\39 times higher
4.0
Studies:
1: Preston-Martin, et al. (1982)
2: Loomis & Savitz (1989)
3: Rief(1989)
4: Thomas (1987)
5: Speers (1988)
33
Activity 3
3-5. What Do the Electromagnetic Field
Studies Tell Us? 14
3-5.1. The Residential Studies 15
Year
Researchers
Subjects Studied
Conclusions
1979 Nancy Wertheimer
Ed Leeper
U. of Colorado
Study of EMF
exposure of 344
children who died
of cancer between
1950 and 1973.
Found correlation between
childhood cancer and high EMF
exposure from power lines as
estimated by a wire coding index.
Children from high exposure
homes are 2-3 times as likely to
develop leukemia, lymphoma and
nervous system disorders as those
from low exposure homes.
1980 David Savitz
U. of Colorado
Medical Center
Replication of above
study. An analysis
of 356 chilfood
cancer cases in
Denver between
1976 and 1983.
Found risk ratio of 1.5 which
means that children with exposure
to power line EMF were 1V5 times
as likely to develop cancer as
children with low exposure to
EMF.
1990
John Peters
U. of Southern
California
Study of 230
childhood cancers
(leukemia victims)
in Los Angeles area
between 1980 and
1987.
Found that children living in
homes near high current power
lines had a 2Vi fold increased risk
of leukemia. Indicated a threshold
of about 2 mG for increased
childhood leukemia risk.
{Microwave News, March/ April 91)
The preliminary results of this
study confirm the
Wertheimer/Leeper and Savitz
findings.
^This factsheet is based on information contained in a three-part article: Robert Pool, "Is There
an EMF-Cancer Connection?" Science, September 7, 21 and October 5, 1990. (See Appendix 2)
5 Four other residential studies have looked for correlations between EMF and childhood
cancer with mixed results: one found an increased risk of nervous system cancers; another
found no risk; two other studies found higher risks for various cancers, but they were not
statistically significant.
34
3-5.2. The Occupational Studies
Activity 3
Year
Researchers
Workers Studied Conclusions
1985
Neal Pearce
Wellington
School of Med.,
New Zealand
Study of electrical
workers
Found an increased risk of leukemia
among electricians and radio and
television repairers and assemblers in
New Zealand.
1987 Terry Thomas
National Cancer
Institute
Study of electrical
workers
Found an increased risk of brain cancer,
but not as a result of their EMF exposure.
When he removed those cases which had
been exposed to lead, soldering fumes,
and organic solvents, the risk for brain
cancer among the remaining workers
was much less than that for the general
population.
1989 Genevieve
Matanowski
Johns Hopkins
University
Studied dose
response
relationship for
cancers in male
New York
telephone workers
(cable splicers,
central office
workers,
installation and
repair) 1976-1980
Cable splicers were nearly twice as likely
to contract all types of cancer as company
workers who did not work on telephone
lines. Risks for leukemia and lymphoma
were particularly high. Central office
workers exposed to peak fields from
switching equipment were more than 3
times as likely to get prostate cancer and
more than 2 times as likely to get oral
cancer as coworkers who were less
exposed. Found two cases of male breast
cancer, a disease so rare that no cases
were expected.
1990 Susan Preston-
Martin
Wendy Mack
U. Southern Cal.
Study of workers
in various
electrical jobs
Found that men who worked for 10 years
or more in a variety of electrical
occupations had a 10 times greater
chance of getting brain cancer.
1990 Joe Bowman
U. Southern Cal.
Dose response
analysis of Pearce
study
Measured average magnetic field
exposures for various occupations in
Pearce study and found no dose
response. Welders, for example, had the
highest exposure to EMF but no leukemia
cases. Low numbers limit this study's
statistical power.
1990 David Thomas
Hutchinson
Cancer Research
Institue, Seattle
Study of 250 male
breast cancer
patients
Found strong correlation with jobs that
involved exposure to EMFs. Men whose
jobs involved some exposure were nearly
twice as likely to have breast cancer as
men with no exposure. Men likely to
have the highest exposure-electricians,
utility linemen and power plant
workers-had 6 times the risk of
developing breast cancer as men who
worked in occupations with no EMF
exposure.
35
3-5.3. The Biological Studies
Year
Researchers
What Studied
Conclusions
1976
Suzanne Bawin
Ross Adey
Space Biology Lab
Chicks
Chick brain cells exposed to EMFs hold
onto much more calcium than
unexposed cells.
1990
Batelle Pacific
Northwest Labs
Rats
Found that EMFs suppress levels of
hormone melatonin. Female rats get
breast tumors.
1990
Robert Liburdy
Lawrence Berkeley
Lab, UCLA
Rats
Altered calcium uptake in rat
lymphocytes with magnetic fields
comparable in intensity to some
occupational exposures. Says that this
could explain how cells could be
altered by signals at the cell membrane.
1990
Richard Lubin, UC
Riverside
Osteoblasts (cells
that produce
bone)
EMFs appear to be modifying a signal
that passes across the membrane. The
signal is triggered by the parathyroid
hormone.
1990 Reba Goodman DNA/RNA Found that pulsed EMF can alter DNA
Ann Henderson synthesis. Through applying 60 Hz
Columbia Univ. magnetic and pulsed fields they
modified RNA transcription and
protein synthesis. Their cell cultures
produced more than the normal
amount of some proteins and less of
others.
36
Activity 3
3-6. Ask Dr. M. About EMFs
The following questions were asked by workers in our training sessions.
Answers are provided by Dr. Steve Markowitz, occupational medicine
physician at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.
Question: When EMF is absorbed into the body, what is
being affected?
Answer: EMF would be absorbed by all cells in the body
that would be reached. Just as EMF penetrates the walls of
a house or building, it also penetrates the body and would
reach all organs.
Question: Isn't it true that many new cells are constantly
being created so that if EMF affects our cells, there are new
ones to replace the affected ones?
Answer: New cells of many organs are, or can be, constantly
made. For instance, cells of the skin, mucosa (inside the
mouth and nose), all along the gastrointestinal system, and
the bone marrow and blood are constantly being turned
over. By contrast, nerve cells are largely irreplaceable since
it is thought that there is little capacity for nerve cells to
regenerate. Most other organs are capable of making new
cells in response to specific stimuli.
The important issue, however, with reference to cancer
induction, is not the ability of the body to produce new cells,
but the capacity of the carcinogen to make normal cells go
awry rather than actually killing the cells. The carcinogen
transforms an existing cell, thereby causing it to become
cancerous and grow in a disordered fashion without the
proper control. The ability of certain body organs to make
new cells cannot overcome this harmful effect of the
carcinogen.
' continued
37
(continued)
Question: What level of EMF exposure should cause
concern among workers?
Answer: We do not currently know what level of EMF
exposure causes the effects being studied.
Question: If a worker is exposed for "x" period of time, is it
too late to bother doing anything?
Answer: While we do not have specific information about
the length of exposure to EMF or other potential
carcinogens which are required to lead to cancer, in general,
we believe that the less the exposure, in terms of duration,
the less likely that cancer will develop. In the absence of
cancer, it is therefore never too late to reduce exposure. A
risk of disease will decrease as the amount and duration of
exposure decreases.
38
Activity 3
Activity 3: Summary
Can Electromagnetic Fields Hurt Us?
1. There is almost total agreement that electromagnetic fields have
biological effects, as cellular and animal studies have shown.
These effects include changes in hormone levels, in calcium flows,
in protein synthesis, in DNA/RNA transcription, and in ion flows
across the cell membrane.
2. When we look at the epidemiologic studies of workers who might
be exposed to EMFs (e.g. electrical occupations), we see many
"positive" studies that show that the risk to electrical workers for
various forms of cancer is higher than the risk to the general
population, which is assumed to be unexposed to EMFs.
3. Residential studies on the impact of EMFs on children are strongly
suggestive, showing a relationship between EMF exposure and
cancer.
4. Researchers seem to have found over and over again that workers
in various electrical jobs have higher risks for various types of
cancer, particularly brain and nervous system cancers as well as
leukemia.
39
Activity 4: What Do We Do About
Electromagnetic Fields?
Purpose:
To debate the possible policy approaches to electromagnetic fields
(Task 1). To develop a local plan of action focused on your workplace
and your members (Task 2).
Taskl: Policy Debate
Please read the three policy options below. From what you have
discussed in previous activities, which policy option would you
choose? In your small group, discuss the pros and cons of all three
positions. On the next page, list the reasons you would take a
particular position.
Position 1: Do Nothing
There is simply not enough evidence that electromagnetic
fields are harmful to our health. From the scientific research
we've looked at there is just too much uncertainty. We have to
wait for new research until we know that we are at risk. In the
meantime, there is nothing to be done.
Position 2: "Prudent Avoidence"
Until more definite knowledge develops, we must take
low-cost, low-effort steps to limit exposure to electromagnetic
fields. This may mean routing new transmission lines so they
avoid people and making "right of ways" (RoW) wider. New
appliances should be redesigned to minimize EMFs. Workers
should be metered so that at least we can gather data on
exposure levels for the future. Workers should move away
from EMF sources, when possible.
Position 3: Redo Everything
There is enough evidence to conclude that we have a real
problem. Major resources and effort will need to be spent on
rewiring, rerouting and reworking our electrical environment.
An aggressive program must be begun to limit field exposures
now.
41
Activity 4
Task 1 (continued)
What are the strengths and weaknesses of each position?
Position 1: Do Nothing
Strengths and Weaknesses
Position 2: Prudent Avoidance
Strengths and Weaknesses
Position 3: Redo Everything
Strengths and Weaknesses
42
Task 2: Local Plan of Action
Please look over the following examples of how workers, community
groups and others are organizing around the EMF issue.
Your task, as a group, is to develop a local plan of action to begin
tackling this problem. First, read the examples of what is being
done (Factsheets 4-1 through 4-5), then discuss and list some
possible approaches your union might take to the EMF issue.
Local Plan of Action:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
43
Activity 4
4-1. Are There Important EMF Court Cases?
A legal remedy for EMF-exposed workers.
Strom vs. Boeing: 16
In the largest settlement for an electromagnetic field (EMF) injury
ever recorded, the Boeing Co. of Seattle, Washington, agreed to pay
more than $500,000 to Robert Strom, who claims that he developed
leukemia from on-the-job exposures to electromagnetic pulse
radiation (EMP).
Strom, a Boeing employee for 29 years, worked with EMP from 1983
through 1985, testing its effects on the electrical and electronic
components of the MX "Peacekeeper" missile.
The out-of-court agreement provides for a comprehensive medical
program for 700 Boeing workers who have worked with EMP
radiation.
The Boeing medical program will provide:
. Ten years of free medical examinations for the 700 Boeing
EMP workers. Participation is voluntary.
. A $200,000 fund to cover expenses associated with medical
exams.
. The appointment of a medical administrator, approved by
both parties, to oversee the program.
^From Microwave News, September /October 1990.
7 With at least $100,000 of the settlement money, the Stroms established the R.C. Strom
Foundation to "ensure that the public continues to learn about the terrible hazards of
electromagnetic radiation." The foundation will provide information to the general public
through schools, unions and other organizations, sponsor symposia on EMFs and support
legislation and EMF-related litigation.
44
Activity 4
4-1. (continued)
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ), a non-profit group based in
Washington, DC, represented Robert Strom and his wife, Barbara.
TLPJ filed a class action suit in June 1988 charging that Boeing had
long known of the health risks associated with EMP exposure, yet
never warned workers or took any precautions to protect them.
Unlike many other previous EMF settlements, the Boeing agreement
is a matter of public record. 18
^Because such cases are sealed, companies are never forced to go on record as setting a
precedent that others might use against them.
45
Activity 4
4-2. What Is Business Doing About EMFs?
4-2.1. Some companies are changing their equ ipment.
IBM:
IBM has introduced a new line of computer terminals that are
shielded to reduce magnetic fields. Previously, IBM sold low
magnetic field terminals only in Denmark and Sweden. The
terminals meet the Swedish standards for very low frequency (VLF)
magnetic fields.
According to the IBM patent application, IBM can reduce VLF
magnetic fields to a level of five to ten times less than that from an
unshielded VDT. The shielding consists of a "magnetic shunt" -- a
ring made of magnetically permeable material -- which is attached to
the yoke of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT). 19
Sigma Designs, Inc.:
Sigma Designs is marketing high-resolution video display terminals
that are shielded to reduce ELF fields - the first U.S. company to
make such a commitment for cathode ray tube monitors.
Following the lead of IBM, Sigma announced that it will sell VDTs
shielded to meet Swedish guidelines for VLF fields. Sigma has been
selling low VLF computer terminals in Sweden since 1988. They sell
tens of thousands of VDTs each year. 20
19 From Microwave News, November /December 1989.
20 From Microwave News, July /August 1990.
46
Activity 4
4-2.2. Companies are sponsoring "mitigation" research to
make EMF exposure less severe.
21
Electric Power Research Institute
EPRI has allocated $1 million to study ways of reducing
electromagnetic field exposures. This will be done through
"mitigation efforts" such as shielding and grounding systems. Other
mitigation efforts are underway in Sweden and in at least three U.S.
states. Among the mitigation techniques to be investigated by EPRI
are:
• Low-field transmission line configuration: Tests have
already shown that redesigning lines (reverse phase and split
phase) can achieve some field cancellation.
• Line burial: Field cancellation can result when the three
phase conductors of transmission lines are very closely
spaced within an underground, oil-filled, steel pipe.
Cancellation is less efficient for buried, residential,
single-phase distribution lines.
• Return current "roundup:" Neutral return currents are often
found on water pipes or other conductors in buildings and
can cause current imbalances. This can contribute
significantly to background EMF levels.
• Ferromagnetic shielding: Ferromagnetic materials can lessen
magnetic fields. Use of this type of shielding would probably
be limited to utility workers and others who spend
significant periods of time exposed to high levels of EMFs at
work.
• Robotic equipment: EPRI has already developed a robotic
remote manipulator arm for working on overhead transmission
lines and could develop similar equipment for other types of
high exposure work. 22
21
EPRI is the research and public relations arm of the utility industry.
22
From Microwave News, January/February 1991.
47
Activity 4
4-3. What Are Unions Doing About EMFs?
4-3.1. Unions are bargaining for contract language that
may relate to EMF exposure.
There are several examples of labor responses to the potential
hazards posed by electromagnetic fields. Several unions -- including
the CWA, AFSCME, UAW, SEIU and the Newspaper Guild -- have
contract language which allows VDT (video display terminal)
workers who are pregnant to seek alternative work for the duration
of their pregnancies if such work is available. Here are some
examples of that contract language:
1. Unions are winning the right to reassign work for pregnant
workers.
Boston University and District 65,
United Auto Workers
Article 18, Section I.H.: Although research to date has not proven that
video display terminals are a health or safety hazard, in recognition of
employee concern about the potential adverse effects involving
pregnancy, the University agrees to the following:
Upon request, the University will attempt to reassign a pregnant
employee to work which does not require the use of a video display
terminal. If such reassignment is not practicable, the employee, upon
request, may be granted a Personal Leave up to three (3) months.
Hennepin County, Minnesota,
and AFSCME Council 14
Letter of Agreement: Available evidence concerning the effect of
operating VDTs on the health of employees is of a limited nature and
considered by some authorities to be inconclusive. It is hoped that
research studies currently in progress will provide more complete and
definitive information concerning this matter. In the interim, Hennepin
County will address the following concerns in the manner indicated:
Pregnancy: Any pregnant employee assigned to operate a VDT may
request reassignment to another position within the department which
does not require use of such equipment. The Employer will attempt to
accommodate such a request.
48
2. Unions are bargaining for radiation emissions testing.
Kamber Group and The Newspaper Guild
(Washington/Baltimore)
Article IX: Safety, 2: The Employer will follow such safety procedures
and inspection schedules as are prescribed by the manufacturer of the
equipment...or as may be prescribed by government agency, in
maintaining and inspecting such equipment. With respect to VDTs, CRTs
or similar devices which may be utilized in the Employer's operations, the
Employer will provide for and pay the cost of annual tests for radiation
emissions. The results of such tests will be made available to the Guild or
employee-users of the equipment upon request.
3. Unions are empowering their Health and Safety Committees.
University of New Haven
and District 925, SEIU
Section 3. The Health and Safety Committee within 90 days from the
signing of this agreement shall establish guidelines for VDT use in the
following areas: radiation hazards, glare, lighting, workstation design,
noise and eye exams. The University will implement no cost items
immediately; other guidelines will be implemented in the order
recommended by the Health and Safety Committee as soon as possible
and in any case within two years. 23
Bureau of National Affairs, VDTs in the Workplace: New Issues, New Answers, 2nd ed.,
Washington, DC: BNA, 1987, pp. 188-196.
49
Activity 4
4-3.2. One union formed a joint working group.
The Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada (CWC),
comprising some 40,000 telephone, telecommunications, electric and
electronic manufacturing workers, lobbied the Canadian government
to investigate the health effects of EMFs several years ago.
A Working Group on Electric and Magnetic ELF Fields was formed
consisting of representatives from labor unions, utility companies,
academia and federal and provincial governments. The group
prepared a document to educate the Canadian public regarding
health effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields at 60 Hz.
The following recommendations were put forward:
• Additional research should be undertaken in Canada to
resolve whether there is an association between exposure to
60 Hz electric and magnetic fields and an increased risk of
cancer.
• An advisory committee should be established to advise on
the research, which consists of all interested parties: industry,
labor, academia and government.
• Workers and the general public need to be informed on
current understanding of health effects of electric and
magnetic fields. Thus, this report should be published.
'See Electric and Magnetic Fields and Your Health, A report of the Working Group on Electric and
Magnitic ELF Fields, Health and Welfare Canada, May 1989.
50
Activity 4
4-3.3. Unions are trying to get their workers monitored.
The CWC (Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada) also
has begun to lobby for the EMF monitoring of its workforce. The
union wants readings taken at telephone switching stations and areas
where workers are constantly exposed to magnetic fields.
As Gary Cwitco, the national health and safety union representative
says: "We would file those results. If someone down the road
determines that X is a safe level, we have something to operate on.
By the year 2000 we might be fighting for compensation." 25
4-3.4. An arbitration board ruled for shielding the
workforce.
In 1989 in Canada, an arbitration board in a labor /management case
adopted a preventive precedent in ordering that an employer
cooperate in the development of a prototype shielding mechanism
forVDTs.
The board reasoned that although the evidence of harm from VDTs
was merely suggestive and inconclusive, "there are simply too many
incidents where the environment has been invaded by unknown
factors which have come to light only after the harm has been done."
'See Harrowsmith, "The Killing Fields," No 95. Vol XV:5 Jan/Feb 1991.
'Quoted in William K. Stevens, "Scientists Debate Health Hazards of Electromagnetic Fields,"
New York Times, July 11, 1989.
51
Activity 4
4-3.5. Unions are educating their members about possible
EMF control measures.
District 1 of the Communications Workers of America (CWA)
developed an informational leaflet on electromagnetic fields for their
members which suggests the following possible control measures:
• Labeling of all products and equipment which emit EMFs at
levels exceeding a mutually determined level, as well as
warning signs in work areas where EMF exposures are likely
to occur.
• Periodic electromagnetic survey of working conditions.
• Regular medical monitoring of all workers exposed to EMFs.
• A right to alternative work during pregnancy that does not
involve exposure to EMFs above background levels.
• Rejection of lead aprons and /or lead shields as protective
equipment, since lead has no ability to block magnetic fields/
"Electromagnetic Fields: What Are They? Are They Dangerous?" CWA, District 1, New York,
New York (handout).
52
4-3.6. Municipal unions in NYC have won rules to limit
EMF exposures.
New York City government workers now have ergonomic standards
for new workstations and chairs — and measures to reduce worker
exposures to EMFs from neighboring VDTs.
The standards require that the backs and sides of VDTs be at least 40
inches from any employee, and that, "consideration should be given
to purchasing equipment which provides for the reduction and or
shielding of EMF emissions from VDTs, prior to the establishment of
applicable radiation standards for VDTs."
The new standards resulted from a June 1990 agreement between the
city and the two leading municipal unions: the Communications
Workers of America (CWA) and District Council 37 of the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). 28
28 From VDTNews, March/April 1991.
53
4-3.7. Local unions can develop solid ideas about what to
29
do about EMFs.
Find out more about the problem.
Much of the information about EMFs has been gathered and
publicized by Paul Brodeur in his new book Currents of Death: Power
Lines, Computer Terminals and the Attempt to Cover Up Their Threat to
Your Health (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1989, $19.95). The book is also
summarized in articles in the June 12, 19, and 26, 1989 issues of New
Yorker magazine.
In addition, the best source of current information on the potential
health hazards of EMFs is Microwave News, (P.O. Box 1799, Grand
Central Station, New York, New York 10163, 212-517-2800). Since a
subscription is $250 per year, local unions can encourage their public
library or their International Union to subscribe.
Argue for adequate government research funding.
We need to demand more government funding so that careful
studies on a larger scale can be conducted. For example, in March
1990, Representative Peter Kostmayer (D-PA) convened a hearing of
the House Interior Subcommittee on General Oversight and
Investigation on federal power line research. He called for a
"doubling or tripling" of the current federal power line EMF research
budget of $3 million, and said that "we are not talking about a lot of
money when tens of million of people may be protected as a result."
For fiscal 1991, Representative George Brown of California got
$750,000 appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for
EMF research.
Paul Landsbergis and Eric Scherzer, "A Worker's Guide to Electromagnetic Radiation,"
OCAW District 8 Resource Center, pp. 24-25.
54
Activity 4
4.3.7 (continued)
Measure exposure levels.
Just as we need to measure the concentration of chemicals in the air,
we need to find out the strength (intensity) of the fields that workers
are exposed to. Dosimeters can be used to measure workers' average
daily exposure, and direct reading instruments can be used to find
out what the strength of the electric or magnetic fields are right now.
(See the January / February 1990 issue of Microwave News for a list of
instruments on the market or send a self-addresed envelope and $1
to MN.) We can gain a better understanding of who faces higher
exposure even though we are not yet sure what the health risks are of
different levels of exposure.
Look at health records.
Does the company (or union) keep records of serious illnesses or
deaths of members, including retirees? Are workers compensation
records available? These could be valuable first steps in finding out
if there are any unusual patterns or types of illnesses. OSHA
regulations (29 CFR 1910.20) require employers to share the analysis
of any medical surveillance data with workers and their unions.
Health surveys.
Collect information on employees' health symptoms, job titles,
regular job activities, etc. Do workers (for example, welders,
electroplaters) work near high voltages or current, or step-down
transformers, causing potential exposure to electric and magnetic
fields? Find out what other hazards workers may be exposed to that
might be causing illness, for example, welding fumes or chemical
solvents. It is possible that magnetic fields interact with some of
these other hazards, increasing the risk of illness. These worker
studies may point out the problem exposures and help to create
pressure to fund large-scale scientific studies.
55
Activity 4
4-3.7. (continued)
Negotiate with management.
Possible hazards from electromagnetic fields can be dealt with
through a union and /or labor-management safety and health
committee, and through collective bargaining. For example in one o]
the first union contracts specifically addressing ELF or VLF fields, th
Writers Guild of America (WGA) and CBS News just agreed to
incorporate VDT safety measures in their new contract. The
agreement requires CBS, among other features, to arrange
workstations so that employees are not working near other VDTs,
and to test for VDT emissions.
Reduce exposure.
Electric fields can be shielded, and high magnetic fields can
sometimes be reduced by reconfiguring wiring. Since these may be
major changes which may take a long time to put into effect, worker
exposure can be reduced in the short term by "administrative
controls." For example, the number of hours any one worker faces
exposure may be reduced by rotating workers out of the area with
the highest level of exposure on an hourly or daily basis.
It has already been 10-15 years since the first studies showed a link
between ELF fields and cancer. It may take years longer to build an
air tight case. Our workplace exposures are continuing, while the
studies go on. Given the current evidence, local unions should take
steps to reduce exposures now.
56
Activity 4
4-4. What Is Happening on the
Residential Front?
4-4.1. Landowners are demanding that a utility buy their
homes.
British Columbia, Canada:
Landowners who live along the site of a proposed British Columbia
Hydro (Utility Company) 138 Kv power line are demanding that the
Canadian utility buy their homes as it did some of the homes along
another 230 Kv line on Vancouver Island. But BC Hydro has refused,
citing the BC Utilities Commission's criticism that it acted
"imprudently" in making its unprecedented offer.
A spokesperson for BC Hydro said: "It's reasonable to assume that
anytime we build or propose a new line, we will have people
questioning us. EMFs are an ongoing issue. We accept that." As of
November 1989, BC Hydro had purchased 21 homes.
4-4.2. Teachers are wearing meters to monitor EMFs.
Florida:
Teachers at four schools have been ordered to wear meters to
monitor EMF exposures from nearby high-voltage power lines. A
judge also directed the Palm Beach County School Board to pay for
the $48,000 measurement program.
The order followed a court ruling that children at the Sandpiper
School in Boca Raton may not play in the school ground which
borders on the high-voltage lines. The suit was filed by three parents
who sought to close the school because of potential EMF health risks.
Over 100 teachers and teaching aides have offered to participate in
the program. Volunteers will wear monitors one day a week and will
record their whereabouts eve ry 15 minutes. 30
30
Both of these reports are from Microwave News, November/December 1989.
57
Activity 4
4-4.3. Residents are proposing that electric companies
investigate design changes and widen right of ways.
Maryland:
In late 1989, the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) gave the
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) the go-ahead to
complete the last segment of a 243 mile 500 Kv power line loop
around Washington, DC. However, in early January 1990, one day
before the order became final, the Office of People's Counsel (OPC)
appealed the decision.
The OPC called for the PSC to adopt a strategy of "prudent
avoidance." They want "the imposition of conditions which will
reduce the magnetic field exposure levels in a reasonable and
prudent manner."
The OPC proposed that the commission "take reasonable steps to
minimize the consequences" — including requiring PEPCO to
"investigate the feasibility of design changes" or to widen the right of
way to ensure levels of 10 Mg or less at its edge or to reroute the line
through a less developed area. Failure to do so "subjects these
residents to a long-term biological experiment, with potential short
and long-term health consequences," according to the OPC. 31
4-4.4. Voters approve first citizens' initiative restricting
power lines.
Whatcom County, Washington:
Voters in Whatcom County, Washington, approved a citizens'
initiative restricting power lines exceeding 115 Kv to industrial areas.
Citizen's Initiative No. 4-90 marks the first successful power line
siting referendum in the United States. 32
Quoted in Microwave News, January /February 1990.
Trom Microwave News, November/December 1990.
58
Activity 4
4-4.5. Three states are studying ways to reduce EMFs from
high-voltage power lines.
Washington, Florida and New York:
In Washington State, the Department of Health (DOH) is leading a
task force charged with investigating EMF mitigation techniques
and their feasibility. The task force was mandated by a state law
which appropriated $40,000 for the two-year project.
In Florida, the Environmental Regulatory Commission has appointed
an independent EMF Task Force to lead a two-year, $1 million survey
of magnetic field mitigation methods and costs. In New York, the
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, a consortium of
New York utilities, is soliciting proposals for methods of reducing
power line magnetic fields. The successful bidder will characterize
significant sources of EMFs and estimate the economic,
environmental and social impacts of potential mitigation approaches.
In April 1988, the New York State Public Service Commission
ordered New York utilities to survey power line magnetic fields and
investigate ways of mmimizing exposures. As a result, in April 1990,
the PSC proposed an interim magnetic field standard of 200 Mg for
new high-voltage line right of ways. The Electric Power Research
Institute reported in 1988 that magnetic fields can be reduced by as
much as 50 percent by changing the phasing 34 of the lines. 35
The word mitigation means to make less severe or less intense.
^Phasing is the arrangement of power lines to minimize EMF emmissions by creating
countervailing fields.
'From Microwave News, May /June 1990.
59
Activity 4
4-4.6. Town council is first in banning all new power lines
above 60 Kv for three years.
Rhode Island:
In October 1990, the town council of East Greenwich, Rhode Island
banned all new power lines above 60 Kv for three years. The
ordinance came about in response to widespread citizen concern
about EMFs from proposed 345 Kv and 115 Kv lines. This is the first
moratorium on power line construction in the United States.
Rhode Islanders for Safe Power (RISP) pushed for the three year
moratorium because of the need for further research on the health
effects of EMFs and because it "was the least noxious formula and the
most likely to be sustained by the Public Utility Commission (PUC)/'
according to a RISP spokesperson. If the moratorium is overturned,
RISP may request the town council to order the more expensive
alternative of burying the lines.
36 Quoted in Microwave News, November /December 1990.
Activity 4
4-5. Are There Electromagnetic Fields Standards?
4-5.1. Yes, but the residential standards are NOT health-based.
There are no federal government standards for either VLF or ELF
radiation. And the standards that do exist are technologically
achievable engineering standards or are simply a codification of
existing levels. 37
Some states have established standards for the strength of electric
fields from high voltage transmission lines. No states have set
standards for distribution lines. Only Florida and New York have set
a magnetic field standard. Current state standards are summarized
in the following table:
State Regulations that Limit Field Strengths on
Transmission Line Right-of-Ways (RoW) 38
State
Field Limit
Montana
1 kV/m at edge of RoW in residential areas
Minnesota
8 kV/m maximum in RoW
New Jersey
3 kV/m at edge of RoW
New York
1.6 kV/m at edge of RoW; 200 mG limit RoW
North Dakota
9 kV/m maximum in RoW
Oregon
9 kV/m maximum in RoW
10 kV/m maximum for 500kV lines
2 kV/m max for 500 kV lines edge of RoW
8 kV/m max for 230 kV & smaller lines RoW
2 kV/m max for 230 kV and smaller lines at edge of RoW
Florida
200 mG for 500 kV lines at edge of RoW
250 mG for double circuit 500 kV lines at edge of RoW
150 mG for 230 kV and smaller lines at edge of RoW
37.
From "The Powerline Controversy: Legal Responses to Potential EMF Health Hazards,"
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 15, no. 2, 1990.
38 From I. Nair, et al. "Power Frequency EMFs Exposure Effects: Research and Regulation," OTA
contractor report, Carnegie Mellon University, January 16, 1989.
61
Activity 4
4-5.2. And, workplace standards do NOT protect us from
low-levelEMFex£psure.
ELF euidelines in the US and in other countries do NOT take into
Sto^SX from acute* health effects from electnc
and magnetic fields in various countries:
Standards for Workplace Exposure (50 - 60 Hz EMFs) 40
Source
U.S. ACGIH*
(proposed)
Electric Field Limit
(V/m)
Germany
25,000
30,000
England
(proposed)
30,000
USSR
Magnetic Field Limit
(mG)
10,000
50,000
17,000
25,000 (for 5 min.)
5,000
IRPA"
10,000
75,000 (1 hour)
18,000 (8 hours)
5,000
> American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, an industry group.
** International Radiation Protection Association.
39 By acute we mean such effects as burns or shocks.
-This chart is taken from Paul Landisbergis and Eric Scherzer, "A Worker's Guide to EMF,"
OCAW District 8 Resource Center.
62
Activity 4
Activity 4: Summary
What Can We Do About EMFs?
1. There are a range of possible policy approaches to take to the
problem of electromagnetic fields. We can "do nothing" and wait
until more scientific evidence is available. We can adopt a
"prudent avoidance" strategy and take certain limited steps in
avoiding exposure to EMFs at home and at work. Or, we can
"change everything" by reconfiguring our entire electrical
environment.
2. There has been one very important EMF court case involving a
group of workers who were exposed to pulsed EMF at a Boeing
plant. A large monetary settlement was made to Robert Strom, a
worker, and a medical program will be provided to all 700 Boeing
employees who have worked with EMP radiation.
3. The business community, in general, isn't doing much about
EMFs, however some companies like IBM are changing their
equipment to shield VDT workers from magnetic radiation. And,
the utility industry funds a research institute, EPRI, which is
currently conducting work on "mitigation" techniques to reduce
the strength of electromagnetic fields.
4. Most unions are just becoming aware of electromagnetic fields
and their potential health effects on members. A Canadian union
(Communications and Electrical Workers, CWC) is trying to have
all its members monitored so that, over time, accurate measures
will be available on EMF exposure. The CWC lobbied the
Canadian government to investigate the health effects of EMFs.
5. Some unions representing VDT workers have bargained for
contract language which calls for pregnant workers to be
reassigned to non-VDT work. Others have bargained for radiation
emissions testing and have empowered their health and safety
committees to establish strong guidelines for VDT use.
continued
63
Activity 4
Summary (continued)
6 District 1 of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) has
* developed an informational leaflet on EMF for their members.
7 Community groups across the United States have been actively
trvine to limit EMF exposure for several years. They have
succeeded in getting a utility to buy homes and have fought for
teachers to wear meters in a school to measure EMF exposure.
Community activists have pressured PUCs to adopt a prudent
avoidance" strategy and proposed that electrical companies
redesign their lines.
8 Citizens eroups have also voted to restrict power lines and several
' states are studying ways to reduce EMFs from high-voltage power
lines. One town council was the first to ban all new power lines
above 60kV for three years.
9 Electromagnetic field standards are almost non-existent. Although
* residential standards exist for electrical fields from high voltage
lines, no states have set standards for distribution lines. And only
one state, Florida, has a magnetic field standard.
10 Workplace standards are only for acute effects such as burns or
'shocks. They do not protect us from low level EMF exposures.
64
Appendices
Appendix 1
Ten Things You Need To Know About EMFs
These ten points were developed for the Labor Institute by Gary
Cwitco, National Representative for the Communications and
Electrical Workers of Canada. They focus on the technical and
medical points that workers should understand about EMFs.
1. Under normal working conditions, there is no immediate or acute risk
from EMF exposure. It is impossible to sense the presence or strength
of such fields without special meters.
2. Virtually everyone agrees that long-term or chronic exposures to these
fields cause what the scientists term "biological effects." This means
that something in the body — everything from sleep /rest patterns to cell
chemistry may be affected. The dispute is whether or not these changes
are "health effects."
3. Epidemiology in humans shows increased rates of cancer in a number
of studies conducted on both worker and community (primarily
children) populations. The two major cancer types have been leukemia
and brain cancer, although recently there have been indications that
breast cancer rates may be increased. In epidemiological terms the
increases are low to moderate. In everyday language this means the
increase is two or three times greater than the level of disease found in
the general population - i.e. an unexposed group. (One may question
the assumption that the general population is an unexposed group.)
4. One theory suggests that these fields do not cause cancer but rather
promote its development. This is probably linked in some way to
changes in the ability of the body's immune system to fight the growth
of cancer cells.
5. There are also studies relating to the reproductive effects of these fields.
The majority of studies seem to indicate no effect but there are others
that raise questions. Also, it is important to note that some of the studies
that have claimed to show no effect give a different result when
analyzed by others.
A-1
Appendix 1
Ten Things. . . (continued)
6. Don't trust the people who give you absolute answers. We don't know
for sure what all the effects and hazards are but we do know enough to
be very concerned. The absence of a final, complete answer does not
mean we should do nothing; it means we don't know enough to do
everything.
7. There are two parts to EMF, electric and magnetic. They are measured
separately.
8. Electric, or E Field, is measured in volts per meter or kilovolts per meter
(V/m or kV/ m) and is present whenever two objects are at a different
potential. Magnetic, or H field, (sometimes called B Field to avoid
confusion) is measured in Tesla (T) or Gauss (G) or microtesla. Note: 1
Tesla = 10,000 Gauss. H Field is produced whenever there is a current
flowing in a conductor.
9. More is not necessarily worse, although it might be. The science has
suggested that there may be frequency and "intensity windows," time
thresholds or "time windows." Also, some of the evidence suggests
children may be at more risk than electrical utility line technicians
working on transmission lines. (The difference between transmission
and distribution, especially in relation to step down transformers, is
important in understanding this apparent contradiction.)
10. In general terms, the easiest method for reducing unnecessary
exposures to EMFs is to increase the distance from the source.
Shielding for electric fields is relatively easy; any thin, grounded
conductive material can be used. Shielding magnetic fields is more
difficult. It requires special alloys with high magnetic permeability.
There is also one thing that we need to remember about all occupational
and environmental health problems and their solutions - while the
definition of the problem has a scientific component, the solution is
always political (this is not to suggest science is not political). When
science clearly supports labor's perspective on an issue, it is easier, but
by no means guaranteed that the problem will be satisfactorily resolved.
October 1990.
A-2
News & Comment
Appendix 2
Is There an EMF-Cancer Connection?
The question of whether electromagnetic fields pose a health risk is being taken seriously by an
increasing number of researchers, but don't throw out your electric hair dryer just yet
Are power lines and electric
blankets hazardous to your
health? There are scientists
on both sides of the increas-
ingly public debate over the
biological effects of electro-
magnetic fields. Each camp
can point to research sup-
porting its position, but what
does the evidence really say? Science now
begins a series of three articles examining that
evidence. This first one looks at the epidemio-
logical research that is searching for a link
between electromagnetic fields and cancer; the
second will deal with the cell and animal
studies; and the third will consider policy
questions and the politics behind the research.
Like most scientists io years ago, Da-
vid Carpenter was skeptical of claims that
exposure to electromagnetic radiation could
promote cancer. But that was before he
directed a S5-million project to test those
claims with epidemiological and laboratory-
studies. Now Carpenter, who is the dean of
the school of public health at the State
University of New York in Albanv, doesn't
think it's such a crazy idea anymore. "I think
there is sufficient evidence to really raise
some red flags here," he says.
Although many of the researchers who
stud\' this controversial field disagree with
Carpenter about the red flags, there has been
an undeniable shift in attitude toward elec-
tromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their pur-
ported health effects. In the 1970s, it
seemed absurd that EMFs — which are gen-
erated by anything electric, from power lines
to household appliances — could be hazard-
ous, even in the tiniest degree. Now it's a
legitimate open question.
Much of the rethinking has been prompt-
ed by a series of epidemiological studies.
Over the past 11 years, a number of re-
searchers have found increased risk of cancer
among children who live close to power
lines or among men whose jobs expose them
to unusually high levels of EMFs. This
epidemiological work, which has been high-
ly publicized, has created a great deal of
public concern about EMFs.
1096
In Alexandria, Virginia, for instance, the
city council has tried to force the local
electric company to remove aboveground
power lines diat run very close to homes in
the city's densely packed historic district.
Hillsborough Count)' in Florida is fighting
the construction of a high-power transmis-
sion line on the grounds that the magnetic
fields it generates are too intense to be
considered safe. In Seattle, a Boeing Com-
pany employee sued to be compensated for
leukemia that he claimed was caused bv on
the-job exposure to EMFs; the claim was
denied, but lawyers see mam* more such
lawsuits in the future.
A widely read magazine — The Sew York
er — has published several sensationalistic ar
tides by a journalist who has made the EMF
issue into a personal crusade. And newspa
pcrs, television newscasts, and radio talk
shows have gotten into the act, worrying
their audience members. Meanwhile, a re-
port from the Environmental Protection
Agency assessing the possible health effects
of EMFs is due out in final form in a few-
weeks; the draft version of the report labeled
EMFs as "a possible, but not proven, cause
of cancer." And a bill that would set federal
standards for EMF exposures has been in-
troduced in Congress.
How good is the evidence that is generat-
ing all this concern? It is, in a word, incon-
clusive. The half dozen childhood leukemia
studies are somewhat contradictory, for in-
stance, and researchers have generally found
no increased risk at all among adults living
close to power lines. The data do seem to
imply diat men working in electrical jobs,
such as electricians and telephone linemen,
are at higher risk of brain tumors and other
cancers, but EMFs may not be to blame.
Many of these workers have been exposed to
chemical carcinogens, such as benzene, that
could explain the extra risk.
"It needs to be resolved," says Patricia
Bufflcr, director of die Epidemiological Re-
search Unit at the University of Texas Medi-
cal Center in Houston. Bufflcr, who savs she
is not persuaded that EMFs are a health
hazard, nevertheless believes that epidemiol-
ogists need to do another round of studies
to resolve the ambiguities in the data.
One of the complications facing epidemi-
ologists is that nearly everyone in the indus-
trialized world is exposed to electromagnetic
radiation in one form or another. Created bv
moving electric charges, electromagnetic ra-
diation propagates outward from anv object
that carries an electrical current and contains
two components that behave quite different-
ly: an electric field and a magnetic field. The
electric component pushes or pulls charged
particles, such as ions, in the direction of the
field; the magnetic component acts on mov-
ing charged particles and pushes them per-
pendicular to their direction of motion.
In terms of possible healdi effects, the two
components have an even more important
distinction. An electric field is easily
screencd — only a tin)- part makes it through
die walls of a house or even dirough skin-
but magnetic fields travel right through
most matter without losing strength.
The EMFs that most people come in
contact with are quite weak. The magnetic
field generated by an overhead power line or
a video terminal, for. instance, is normally
only a few milligauss, or about 1% of the
earth's magnetic field. And although the
electric field directly below a high-tension
power line can be as much as 10 kilovolts
per meter, the corresponding field induced
inside the body will be only about 1 milli-
volt per meter— no bigger than the electric
fields naturally generated by some cells.
These facts, more than any other, initially
persuaded scientists that EMFs must be safe.
How could such seemingly insignificant
magnetic and electric fields be dangerous?
So in 1979 when Nancy Wertheimer and
Ed Leeper first reported a correlation be-
tween childhood cancer and high EMF ex-
posure from power lines, almost no one
believed it. Wertheimer and Leeper had
performed a case-control study in which
they compared the EMF exposures of 344
children in Colorado who died of cancer
from 1950 to 1973 with those of an approx-
imately equal number of controls — children
born at the same time as the cancer victims
but who did not get cancer. The researchers
concluded that children from high-exposure
homes were two to three times as likely as
those from low-exposure homes to develop
cancer, particularly leukemia, lymphomas,
and nervous system tumors.
science, vol. 249
A-3
I
Appendix 2
It was a nearly unbelievable result, and
other researchers didn't have to look too
hard to find reasons to doubt it. The study's
major weakness was that Wertheimer and
Leeper had not actually measured the EMFs
that the children were exposed to. They had
merely estimated them according to what
types of electric power lines ran near the
homes. (Such lines earn' anywhere from 115
volts to several hundred kilovolts, depend-
ing on their function in the distribution
system; most lines near homes are no more
than 35 kilovolts.) Moreover, this "wire
coding" was not even done blind: The two
researchers knew which homes had the can-
cer cases and which had the controls. "Ev-
eryone expected that the Wertheimer study's
flaws were fatal," Carpenter recalls.
That certainlv was Carpenter's expecta-
tion. He first got involved in EMF research
in 1980 when he was asked to direct a series
of EMF studies paid for by New York
power companies and administered by the
state health department. Carpenter asked
David Savitz at the Universitv of Colorado
Medical School to try to replicate the Den-
ver study, expecting that the new re-
search would come up negative.
Instead, Savitz essentially replicated
the Wertheimcr-Leeper results. From a
case-control analysis of 356 childhood
cancer cases in the Denver area between
1976 and 1983, he calculated a risk
ratio of about 1.5 — that is, children
with high exposure to power line EMFs
were about 1 Vi times as likely to devel-
op cancer as children with very low
exposure. Although Savitz's calculated
risks were lower than those of Werth-
eimer and Leeper, his thoroughness
gave the results greater weight. For
example, Savitz performed statistical
analyses to make sure his results were
not skewed by such possible confound-
ing factors as socioeconomic class or
mothers smoking during pregnancy. "It
was that study," Carpenter remembers,
"that caused me and most of the panel
members [overseeing the New York
State studies] to change our position."
In addition to the Wertheimer-Leeper
and the Savitz work, four other studies have
looked for correlations between EMFs and
childhood cancer — with mixed results. One
found no increased risks at all for children
living close to power lines; another found
increased risks of nervous system cancers
and lymphomas, but a decreased risk for
leukemia; two others found higher risks for
various cancers, but the numbers were not
statistically significant.
Each of these reports has a variety of
flaws. All, for instance, included relatively
small numbers of children, and therefore the
7 SEPTEMBER I99O
statistical power of the results is low. But the
major shortcoming is that no one has found
a consistent dose-response relationship be-
tween cancer rates and EMF exposures. If a
little electromagnetic radiation is bad, then
more should be worse, but that doesn't
emerge from the data. One study, for in-
stance, found a higher cancer risk in homes
where the average magnetic field was lower.
A related problem is finding a correlation
between cancer risk and measured — as op-
posed to estimated — EMF exposures. Even
the well-regarded stud}' by Savitz, for in-
stance, found an increased risk in high-
exposure homes as rated by wire coding, but
a weaker or absent relationship between
cancer rates and EMF exposures as deter-
mined by spot measurements in the home.
This is not a fatal flaw, Savitz says. He
argues that because electrical usage varies
widely from day to day and even hour to
hour, long-term EMF exposure mav be
more accurately estimated by looking at the
types of power lines near a home than by
taking a one-time measure of the EMFs in
or near that house. Still, he says, the ques-
10,000
APPLIANCES
500 kV TRANSMISSION LINES
(3 DISTRIBUTION LINES
0.1 1 10 100 1000
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (METERS)
Magnetic field exposure varies according to distance
and type of equipment.
tion won't be settled until the data show a
better correlation between dose and effect.
That information could soon be provided
by John Peters at the University of Southern
California, who is putting the finishing
touches on a case-control study of 230
childhood leukemia victims in the Los An-
geles area between 1980 and 1987. In it he
will compare cancer rates with 24-hour re-
cords of actual EMF exposures in the homes
as well as with exposures obtained by spot
measurements and those estimated by wire
coding. In addition to the EMF measure-
ments, Peters says he has collected informa-
tion on "everything else we can thi
that might cause or promote cancer
effort to rule out other possible cause
increased risk appears. He plans to
the results at an October meeting spoi
by his funding agent, the Electric '.
Research Institute. Meanwhile, he is
ing his findings under wraps.
Although a majority of the stud
childhood cancer and EMF exposure
found at least some correlation, those
ing at adults living close to power line
generally been negative. In 1982,
heimer and Leeper claimed to have
increased cancer rates among adults liv
various parts of Colorado who were ex
to higher than average doses of EMF:
several other studies since then have ]
little or nothing. And that's hard to ex
Why should EMFs inctease the risk of
hood cancer while having little or no
on adult cancer? One possible explanat
that it is much more difficult to separal
EMFs from other risk factors for adult<
for children, but no one reallv knows.
In contrast to the uncertainty about
dential EMF exposures, the picrun
emerges from occupational stud
sharp. Again and again, epiden
gists have found that workers in va
electrical jobs have higher risks for
ous types of cancer, particularly
and nervous system cancers as w
leukemias. In a recently finished
control study in the Los Angeles
for instance, Susan Presron-Martir
Wendy Mack at the Univcrsir
Southern California found that
s> who had worked for 10 years or i
k in a variety of electrical occupation:
I a ten times greater chance of ge
e brain cancer than men in the co:
- group. "Employment in these occ
a tions is definitely conferring some
| of risk," Mack says, but "we don't k
8 whether EMFs are to blame."
> The problem, she explains, is
electrical workers may be expose
things besides electric and magi
fields that could be causing the
creased cancer risk. In the past, electric
have worked with organic solvents, sue
benzene, that are known to cause cancel
it's premature to single out EMFs as
culprit.
And proving a dose-response relation
here has been just as tough as in the cas
EMFs and childhood cancer. One wi
noted study, performed by Genevieve
tanoski of Johns Hopkins University,
find a dose-response relationship for can
in male New York Telephone emplo
from 1976 to 1980. Matanoski mcasi
the average magnetic field exposure am
NEWS & COMMENT 1
A-4
Appendix 2
different t\pes of employees and found that
cable splicers had by far the largest doses,
followed bv central office employees and
then installation and repair workers.
When she compared cancer rates among
the various types of employees, she found an
ominous result: Cable splicers were nearly
twice as likely to contract all types of cancer
as company employees who did not work on
telephone lines, with the risks for leukemia
and lymphomas being particularly high.
Among central office workers, who are ex-
posed to short, intense fields from telephone
switching machinery, the rates of several
cancers were unusual!)' high, although
not as high as for the cable splicers. The
central office workers were more than
three times as likely to get prostate cancer
and more than twice as likel} to get oral
cancer as co-workers who were less ex-
posed .And there were two cases of male
breast cancer, a disease so rare that no
cases at all would be expected among a
group as small as the one Matanoski
studied.
That suggestive finding by Matanoski
was supported by a srudv announced in
June bv David Thomas of the Hutchin-
son Cancer Research Institute in Seattle,
Washington. In a case-control studv of
250 male breast cancer patients, Thomas
found a strong correlation with jobs that
involv ed exposure to EMFs. He calculat-
ed that men whose jobs involved some
exposure to EMFs were nearlv twice as
likely to have breast cancer as those men
with no exposure, and men likely to have die
highest exposures — electricians, utility line-
men, and power plant workers — had six
times the risk of developing breast cancer as
men who worked in occupations with no
EMF exposure.
But other studies have found no evidence
of a dose response for EMF exposure. A
1 987 report by Terry Thomas at the Nation-
al Cancer Institute found an increased risk of
brain cancer among electrical workers, but
apparently not as a result of their EMF
exposure. When Thomas removed those
cases who had been exposed to lead, solder-
ing fumes, and organic solvents, the risk for
brain cancer among the remaining workers
was much less dian that fot the general
population.
More recently, Joe Bowman at the Uni-
versity of Southern California finished a
dose-response analysis of a 1985 study in
which Neal Pearce of the Wellington School
of Medicine in New Zealand found an in-
creased risk for leukemia among electricians
and radio and television repairers and assem-
blers in New Zealand. Bowman measured
the average magnetic field exposures for the
various occupations and found no dose re-
sponse. Welders, for example, had the high-
est exposure to electromagnetic fields but no
leukemia cases. Although the low numbers
of cases limit the study's statistical power, it
is "a strike against the hypothesis that all
EMFs cause cancer," Bowman says.
Individually, the various epidemiological
studies can each be challenged on one
ground or another, but as a group they have
a rough consistency that is harder to ignore.
The cancers linked with EMF exposure are
usually leukemia, lymphomas, and nervous
system cancers, and the risk rates comparing
exposed with unexposed persons are usually
CHILDHOOD CANCER AND
EXPOSURE TO POWER LINES
Wertheimer/
Lee per (1979)
Leukemia
| H — 6 —
I
Fulton {1980}
Leukemia
q
Tomenius (1966)
All cancers
Leukemia
□ :
Myers (1985)
All cancers
Leukemia
la I
; .a \
Saviiz (1986)
All cancers
Leukemia
j-o-H I
t-O-i — I
Lin/Lu (1989)
All cancers
Leukemia
Increased risk? Most studies find risk ratios between
1 and 2 for childhood cancer.
on the order of two or three.
Savitz, who is now at the University of
North Carolina, has performed a meta-anal-
ysis on leukemia among electrical workers in
which he combined and analzyed die data
from 1 1 occupational studies, some negative
and some positive. He found that as a group
the studies imply a small but unmistakable
effect. For a wide range of occupations that
involve some EMF exposure, the risk for
developing leukemia was 1.2 times that of
the general population.
If the increased risk is real, Savitz says, the
calculated risk ratios almost certainly under-
state the size of the effect. The occupational
studies, for instance, usually judge how
much EMF exposure a person had over his
career by relying on job tides. This imprecise
approach must certainly lead to a great deal
of misclassification, which will tend to bias
the results toward a lower risk.
On the other hand, some researchers sus-
pect that better studies, particularly those
looking at childhood cancer, might find
tittle or no risk from EMFs. Buffler at the
University of Texas Medical Center points
out that as the studies have improved, the
risk ratios have tended to get smaller. This is
particular!)' evident when comparing the
Wertheimer- Leeper work with the Savtiz
results. This pattern argues against the exis-
tence of a much larger risk that is waiting to
be identified, she says.
And even if the effect is real, EMFs are
clearly not as dangerous to the general pop-
ulation as smoking, for instance. Electricity
usage has doubled several times in the last
40 years — and with it, probably, the average
exposure to EMFs — but there has been no
corresponding giant upsurge in childhood
leukemia, or an)' of the other cancers sug-
gested by the epidemiological work. If the
implications of the Savitz study are true,
then roughly 15% of childhood cancers
are due to power line exposure, and
Carpenter thinks it's reasonable to guess
that another 15 to 25% could be caused
by appliances. But if 30 to 40% of child-
hood cancers are caused by EMFs, there
should have been a big jump in these
cancers over the last 40 years. Epidemiol-
ogists don't agree on exactly how much
cancer rates have changed over time, but
it would be hard for them to miss some-
thing this large.
Scientists would also like to under-
stand die biological processes bv which
EMF exposure might lead to cancer.
| Laboratory investigations have shown
6 that EMFs can indeed elicit some effects
3 in cells, including changes in hormone
levels, in protein synthesis, and in ion
flow across cell membranes. But so far
this research has not produced a "smok-
ing gun" — there is no clear laboratory evi-
dence that EMFs eidier cause or promote
cancer. Without such evidence, most re-
searchers arc reluctant to pin the carcinogen
label on EMFs based on the somewhat
ambiguous epidemiology studies.
What is needed, researchers say, is more
research, and that is coming. Two or three
epidemiological studies, including Peters',
are scheduled to be released in the next
couple of months, and several large projects
are under way which won't be finished for 2
or 3 years. This next generation of research
will include several improvements over its
predecessors. The studies will in general be
much larger — large enough to provide some
real statistical power — and they will take
into account what researchers have learned
in the past few years about measuring EMF
exposures. "If the next wave of studies
doesn't answer the question," says Bowman
at the USC, where several of the studies are
being done, "it probably won't be decided
by epidemiological means."
a Robert Pool
ADDITIONAL READING
I. Nair. G. Morgan, H. K. Florig. BMtgM Efntt of
Power hnaunuy Btctnf and MaRmtii hwlds (Office of
Technology Assessment, Washington. DC. 1989/.
1098
SCIENCE, VOL. 249
A-5
Appendix 2
Electromagnetic Fields:
The Biological Evidence
Researchers now accept that even relatively weak EMFs have
biological effects, but the evidence for health effects remains "iffy"
Over the past few
years, epidemiologi-
cal studies that seem
to show links between
exposure to electro-
magnetic fields
(EMFs) and cancer —
especially leukemias,
lymphomas, and
The second in a series. brain cancer — have
generated headlines
and prompted public concern about the
hazards of living near power lines and oper-
ating electrical equipment. But while these
studies are suggestive, they are sometimes
contradictor,' and often lack statistical sig-
nificance, and that has led most scientists to
decide that the epidemiological data by
themselves are inconclusive (see Science, 7
September, p. 1096). A recent draft report
on EMFs and cancer, prepared by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, concludes,
for example, that there is not enough evi-
dence to classify the fields as "probable
human carcinogens."
So researchers are studying how the body
reacts to EMFs at the cellular level, in the
hope that this will shed some light on the
epidemiological findings. After more than a
decade of laboratory experimentation, there
is still no direct evidence that EMFs cause or
promote cancer in lab animals. But during
that time scientists have discovered a num-
ber of ways EMFs can affect biological
functions, including changes in hormone
levels, alterations in the binding of ions to
cell membranes, and the modification of
biochemical processes inside the cell, such as
RNA transcription and protein synthesis.
Could anv of these biological effects ex-
plain how EMFs might increase the risk of
cancer? Some scientists think it's possible.
Calcium ion concentrations in the cell, for
instance, plays a major role in cell division,
which in turn has an important part in
cancer promotion. And recently, researchers
at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory in
Richland, Washington, have come close to
showing a direct EMF-cancer link in rats.
They have found that EMFs suppress levels
of the hormone melatonin, something that
other researchers have shown makes female
rats more susceptible to chemically induced
breast tumors.
Despite these possible connections, "it's
still not clear whether these biological effects
translate into health effects," says Imre
Gyuk, who manages the EMF research pro-
gram at the Department of Enetgy. The
Battelle work, for instance, hints at an
EMF-breast cancer connection, but the epi-
demiological evidence pointing toward
breast cancer is weaker than for leukemias,
lymphomas, and brain cancers. Many of the
laboratory experiments have been done at
EMF intensities thousands of times higher
than those people normally encounter at
home or at work. And little of the data has
been independently replicated by researchers
in separate labs. As a result, Gyuk says, many
of the results are still "iffy."
To some researchers, it is amazing that the
SCIENCE, VOL. 249
A-6
Appendix 2
Breast cancer connection? Bary Wilson's
meuiloniti work is suggestive.
EMFs produced by power lines and electric
appliances have any effect on the body at all.
In the early and mid-1970s, most scientists
thought that because these fields have low
frequencies — and thus low energies — they
would be far too weak to have biological
effects. The energy carried by photons of 60-
hcrtz electromagnetic radiation is too mea-
ger to break chemical bonds, as x-ravs do, or
even heat up things in their path, as micro-
waves do. So how could EMFs have any
biological effects?
The answer to that question, it now
seems, may lie in the fact that low-frequency
EMFs induce weak electric fields inside the
body. Low-frequency EMFs— such as those
produced by the 50- and 60-hertz electric
currents in power distribution systems —
behave as if they consist of independent
electric and magnetic fields, each of which
interacts with the body in its own way, An
external electric field induces a much smaller
electric field inside the bodv — usuallv about
one ten-millionth the size of the applied
field— and this induced field accelerates
ions, creating electrical currents in and
around cells. An oscillating magnetic field,
such as from a 60-hertz power line, also
creates an induced electric field and currents.
If these oscillating fields do affect cells,
"the cell membrane is where the interaction
is likely to be," says Jim Weaver, a phvsicist
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
gy who studies the effects of physical stimuli
on biological systems. The EMFs may alter
something on the membrane, perhaps the
conformation of receptors on its surface;
these changes in turn appear to modify
signals that are sent through the membrane
into the interior of the cell; and the final
result is a change in some aspect of the cell's
biochemistry, such as protein synthesis.
The problem with this model, though, is
Face to Face with EMFs
Standing in the grasp of an intense electric field is a spooky experience You see
nothing and hear nothing, but suddenly the hairs on the back of your neck are
standing on end. As the field increases, the sensation spreads across vour body "You
can feel a pulsing," says Charles Graham, who runs an electric field exposure test
facility at Midwest Research Institute in Kansas City, Missouri. "It's a creepy, crawly
feeling, like bugs crawling across your skin."
A magnetic field is harder to detect, but one that is 200 times as strong as the earth's
magnetic field and oscillating at 20 times a second docs die trick. Under those
conditions, the magnetic field interacts directly with the retina and becomes palpable
as waves of faint light that ripple across the visual field.
The fields that produce these dramatic sensations are stronger than anything a
person normally encounters, even standing directly under a high-tension power line
In fact, most electromagnetic fields (EMFs) outside the laboratory are imperceptible
But imperceptibihty does not imply the lack of an effect, and researchers who study
how humans and other primates respond to EMFs have found that physically
undetectable fields can produce physiological and behavioral changes So far
however, none of these whole-body changes have been linked to specific health
effects.
In the mid-1960s, Russians scientists reported that workers in a high-voltage
power switchyard were suffering from headaches, fatigue, and decreased libido and
there have been anecdotal reports of various physiological effects of EMFs since then
but most of the observations have been poorly characterized. MRTs Graham is trying
to change that. He has exposed human volunteers to 60-hertz EMFs of slightly higher
intensities than those directly under a high-voltage transmission line: electric fields of
up to 12 kilovolts per meter and a magnetic flux of as much as 300 milligauss At these
levels, the subject cannot sense the EMFs, Graham says, bur the fields are strong
enough to produce consistent changes in both heart rate and test performance
"The heart rate slows within 3 or 4 minutes after you turn the field on or off "
Graham reports, each time returning to its normal rate within a few minutes The
average drop in heart rate is about three beats per minute. Graham has also found
subtle changes in brain activity, as well as a slight slowing of reaction time and a minor
deterioration in performance on time-related tests, such as estimating die passage of
time. All of the changes disappear after the field is turned off.
At the molecular level, Graham says, "We checked out umpteen different biochemi-
cal tests, and we haven't found anything"— no changes in hormone levels and no
differences in die blood cell counts. That may be because die 24- and 36-hour periods
over which the tests were done were too short, he notes. It might take weeks or even
years for some effects to appear, but no one w ants to try that on humans.
Baboons are a different matter, however, and Walter Rogers at the Southwest
Research Institute in San Antonio has exposed these animals to intense electric fields
for weeks at a time. The apes can sense fields as low as about 12 kV/m— approximately
the same as die perception threshold in humans— and they accept fields up to 66 kV/
m without pain. In one experiment, Rogers exposed the baboons to a 30-kV/m field
for 12 hours a day, and looked for effects on learning activities and social behavior.
"On the first day of exposure, the monkeys don't do anything— die)' look slightly
sedated," Rogers reports. But by the beginning of the third day, they're all performing
tasks just like die baboons in the control group, who get no EMF exposure. "There is
something interesting [to the baboons] about the first exposure," Rogers says
"Maybe the apes are just responding to a new sensation, getting used to it and then
deciding to act as normal." Social behavior among the exposed baboons is noticeably
different at first, too, he says. During the first week, there is more passiveness, more
tension, and more grooming and scratching than in the control group, but after
another week, their behavior returns to normal.
Like Graham, Rogers ran a batten- of biochemical tests on his subjects and found
nothing. Nor is there evidence that the baboons' exposures led to the simian
equivalent of headaches or fatigue. Although he couldn't ask the apes how they felt,
Rogers says that because there was no noticeable difference between the controls and
exposed group, it seems unlikely that the fields made the baboons feel worse. The
combination of human and ape data seems to imply that whatever effects EMFs may
have Over periods of years, they do little or nothing obvious over the short run. ■ R.P.
21 SEPTEMBER 1990
RESEARCH NEWS 1379
A-7
Appendix 2
that no one knows how the rather weak
fields and currents induced by EMFs could
make their presence felt in the midst of the
electrical activity that naturally takes place
inside the body all the time. Cells maintain
electric fields across their outer membranes,
for instance, that are billions of times larger
than the electric fields induced by EMFs
from power lines. And the electric signals of
the heart induce currents in the tissue sur-
rounding the heart that are as high as 1 0 to
100 milliamperes per square meter — 100 to
1000 times as intense as the currents in-
duced by EMFs from power lines.
Several researchers, including Weaver,
have suggested ways in which the small
signals from EMFs could be detected bv
cells, but they are all rather speculative. At
this point, the only thing that appears cer-
tain is that cells do manage somehow to
respond to EMFs no larger than those com-
monly found in the environment.
One such response that has been replicat-
ed many times is a modification of melato-
nin production by the pineal gland. Melato-
nin is a regulator)- hormone whose levels
have been linked to various cancers, especial-
ly breast and prostate, as well as to the
functioning of the immune system. At Bat-
tellc Pacific Northwest Laboratorv, a series
of studies has shown that 60-hertz electric-
fields of about 2 kilovolts per meter reduce
the amount of melatonin in the rats' pineal
glands at night, when melatonin levels arc-
normally at their peak. And at the University
of Texas Health Science Center in San Anto-
nio, Russel Reiter has found that bv quicklv
turning on and off magnetic fields of 0.8
gauss— twice the strength of the earth's
field — he can reduce rats' nighttime melato-
nin levels by 30 to 50%.
The melatonin studies may be one experi-
ment away from finding a direct link be-
tween EMFs and cancer. Bary Wilson at
Battelle notes that other researchers have
found that lower melatonin levels leave the
rats vulnerable to chemically induced mam-
mary tumors. Rats whose pineal glands have
been surgically removed are more likely to
develop tumors, and will develop more ru-
mors on average, than rats with intact pineal
glands; on the other hand, rats whose pineal
glands have been removed but that are given
melatonin injections are no more likely to
develop tumors than the controls.
Battelle scientists plan to attempt to re-
produce the results with EMF exposure in
place of the pinealectomy. They hypothesize
that the EMFs will lower melatonin levels,
leaving the rats more prone to developing
tumors. Preliminary, unpublished data do
show an effect, Wilson says, but it was
necessary to put together data from two
groups of animals to get statistical signifi-
1380
cance, weakening the overall results. He
now plans to perform the experiment on a
larger group of animals in hopes of getting
statistical significance from a single data set.
The melatonin work has also received
support from a recent epidemiological
study. In 1987, Richard Stevens at Battelle
reasoned from the laboratorv evidence to
suggest that EMFs might promote breast
cancer, although at the time there was no
epidemiological evidence of that. He point-
ed out that since melatonin suppresses sex
hormones, lower levels of melatonin would
lead to higher levels of estrogen and prolac-
tin, which are known to be associated with
increased risk of breast cancer.
In June, epidemiologist Paul Demers at
the Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in
Seattle released a report that seems to have
borne out Stevens' prediction. The study
found diat male electricians, utility linemen,
and power plant workers had six times as
great a chance of developing breast cancer as
males who worked in jobs with no EMF
exposure. Now Stevens and workers from
the Hutchinson Center are putting together
a proposal to look for a link between female
breast cancer and EMF exposure. Two earli-
er studies have looked for such a link with
conflicting results, Stevens notes. One saw a
correlation between EMF exposure and fe-
male breast cancer, and the other didn't, but
neither result had a high statistical signifi-
cance. No laboratory data, however, vet
bears on the childhood leukemins and brain
cancers that the epidemiological work has
most frequently linked to EMF exposure.
Although the melatonin studies at Battelle
and the UT Health Science Center show
that EMFs can have measurable biological
effects, the\' say nothing about how. Bur a
scries of experiments at other labs is slowly
EMFs and calcium flow. Robert Liburdy 's
magnetic fields alter the uptake of calcium tew.
assembling a picture of the ways in i
EMFs interact with individual cells.
The first clear, reproducible eviden
EMFs affecting biological tissue wa
observation of a change in how ca
atoms leave the cell membrane. In ]
Suzanne Bawin and Ross Adey at the !
Biology Laboratory at the Universil
California, Los Angeles, took the t
from freshly killed chicks, cut them in
put them in solution, and exposed on<
to an electric field and used the other h
a control. They found that the brain
exposed to the electric field held onto r
more calcium than the unexposed cells.
Blackman, a researcher at the Environm
Protection Agenq' and current preside!
the Bioelectromagnetics Society, has
seen a modification in the binding of c
um to the membrane, although he u;
different type of EMF exposure and
results generally show less calcium bin
in the exposed cells rather than more. Bl
man is one of the few researchers
reports seeing effects at EMF levels cor
rable to normal background in homes.
At Lawrence Berkeley Laboratorv, f
ert Liburdy has recently completed a St
of experiments in which he altered cak
uptake in rat lymphocytes with magi
fields comparable in intensity to some o
pational exposures. He found that, in ur
turned cells, EMF exposure did not a:
how much calcium the cells took in fro
surrounding solution, but when he
dosed the cells with a mitogen— a substE
that triggers cell division— the EMFs' ex
sure did increase calcium uptake. The
crease varied from 20% to 200%, he sa-
"This could explain how cell proliferat
and division could be altered by signal,
the cell membrane," Liburdy says. Once
mitogen binds to the cell membrane
sends a signal to the interior of the cell t
eventually triggers cell division. Calci
flow through the membrane is an import
part of this signal, and die increased calci
uptake is an indication that the mitogt
signal is somehow being amplified by
EMFs, Liburdy says. Since cancer growt!
dependent on cell proliferation, these fii
ings might offer a way that EMFs coi
promote cancer, Liburdy adds, but the a
nection is rather tenuous.
At the University' of California, Riversi
biochemist Richard Lubin is also trying
trace the path of EMF-induced effects on I
cell membrane and into the cell. He wo:
with osteoblasts, the specialized cells d
produce bone. For more than 15 yea
orthopedic surgeons have used strong, p
sating magnetic fields to speed the heali
of fractures that have not joined by thei
selves, but no one understands why t
SCIENCE, VOL. 2
A-8
fields trigger the bone healing. Lubin now
thinks he is close to an answer.
Once again, the EMFs appear to be modi-
fying a signal that passes across the mem-
brane — this time a signal triggered by para-
thyroid hormone, a substance that stimu-
lates the breakdown of bone and inhibits
bone growth. Magnetic fields, Lubin says,
seem to block the action of this hormone.
To test the effects of high-intensirv magnetic
fields on the receptor for parathyroid hor-
mone, he did a series of experiments using
monoclonal antibodies designed to recog-
nize various parts of the receptor. Turning on
a magnetic field doesn't alter the binding of
monoclonal antibodies designed to mimic the
hormone, Lubin says, "but die monoclonal
antibodies that recognize the signaJ transduc-
tion region are being affected." His conclu-
sion: The induced electric fields are changing
the pattern of charges on die surface [of the
membrane] so that the receptor is not in the
best configuration to transmit its signal."
Inside the cell, the result is a decrease of up to
80% in the amount of cyclic adenosine mono-
phosphate (cAMP) , an important regulator
of cell metabolism. The decrease in cAMP
somehow causes an increase in bone synthesis,
but that part of the picture is still out of focus.
Researchers have identified several other
functions inside the cell modified by EMF
exposure. Some have reported that pulsed
magnetic fields can alter DNA synthesis.
And in a series of experiments at Columbia
University in New York City, Reba Good-
man and Ann Henderson have modified
RNA transcription — the process of making
molecules of messenger RNA from the
DNA template — and protein synthesis.
Working with both 60-hertz magnetic fields
and the complicated pulsed fields used to
facilitate bone healing, thev found that their
cell cultures produced more than the normal
amount of some proteins and less of others.
On the other hand, a number of experi-
ments have shown that low-frequency
EMFs apparently do not cause mutations in
the cellular DNA. This is consistent with
theory. Since low-frequencv EMFs have too
little energy to damage molecules.
So does any of the laboratory evidence
point toward a connection between EMFs
and cancer in humans? As with the epidemi-
ological data, the laboratory data remains
maddeningly inconclusive. The most sugges-
tive evidence — the melatonin work — points
toward breast cancer, which is not one of the
types of cancer with the most epidemiological
data behind it. For now, says Gyuk at DOE,
what is known about the biological effects of
EMFs makes it at least possible that the fields
could promote cancer. But whether "possible"
ever turns into "probable" depends on the
results of further research. ■ Robert Pool
Science, vol. 249, September 21, 1990, © AAAS
A-9
Appendix 2
Flying Blind: The
Making of EMF Policy
Electromagnetic fields may be dangerous—or they may not. Hon
should policy be formulated in this state of conftsiou?
When the Boeing
Company agreed in
August to pav
S500,000 to ex-em-
ployee Robert Strom,
who claimed that on-
the-job exposure to
electromagnetic radia-
tion had given him
Lai """' ni ' < cancer, it dramatized
how high the stakes have become in the
controversy surrounding electromagnetic
fields (EMFs). Strom, who for 3 years had
tested how MX missiles withstood electro-
magnetic pulses, later developed leukemia
and blamed the company, citing scientific
evidence that EMF exposure may be linked
to different types of cancer. Although Strom
had lost an earlier case for worker's compen-
sation, Boeing decided to settle this one out
of court, and observers say the decision
could open the door to a rash of personal
injury cases where cancer victims trv to pin
the blame on EMF exposure.
But whether Strom vs. Boeing is the
beginning of a trend or just a one-time
accommodation, one thing is clear: EMFs
pose a dilemma. On the one hand, there is
no solid proof that EMFs are dangerous.
Several epidemiological studies have found
links between EMF exposure and certain
types of cancer, especially leukemias, lym-
phomas, and brain cancers, but the data are
inconclusive (Science, 7 September, p.
1096). And lab experiments have shown
that low-frequency EMFs like those pro-
duced by power lines and electrical appli-
ances can have biological effects, but there is
no direct evidence that these effects lead to
cancer or other health problems (Science, 21
September, p. 1378).
On the other hand, there is an increasing
consensus that EMFs may pose some type of
health hazard for humans, and many scien-
tists believe this possibility cannot be ig-
nored. "The researchers I speak to put the
chances at between 10% and 60% that
EMFs will turn out to have some health
effects," says Granger Morgan, head of the
Department of Engineering and Public Poli-
Prudent avoider. Granger Mwgan advises
doing ihe easy things to lessen EMF exposure.
5 OCTOBER 1990
cy ar Carnegie Mellon University in Pitts-
burgh. And, as Strom's case suggests, EMFs
have already proven to be threatening to one
kind of health: the financial health of corpo-
rations. The number of personal injury cases
involving EMFs is small but grow ing, says
Thomas Watson, a Washington, D.C., at-
torney who represents utilities and appliance
manufacturers on EMF-related matters.
There have also been dozens of attempts by
citizens' groups and local governments to
block construction of transmission lines and
electric substations. "The increasing legal
and regulatory proceedings," Morgan savs,
"indicate that there is a growing social cost
Of doing nothing."
Ihe EMF quandary is typical of the prob-
lems that face policy-makers anv time thev
tackle an issue that depends on scientific
information, but on which the scientific data
are far from conclusive, Morgan, who has
done an extensive study of policy-making in
such data-poor settings, says it is possible to
formulate a reasonable course of action for
the next few years until more is known
about EMFs, and he identifies three issues
that need to be addressed: regulation of
EMF exposure without complete knowl-
edge of the fields' biological effects, funding
of further research, and preparation for the
possibility that there is a real problem.
Each of these issues offers its own chal-
lenges. Regulation is potentially the most
contentious issue since it could be quite
expensive to industry, but so far there are
few limits on EMF levels. The federal gov-
ernment has no guidelines on EMF expo-
sure, although Representative Frank I
(D-NJ) has said he plans to introdua
latian to set national exposure stan
Seven states limit the maximum clectr:
near high-voltage transmission line;
two of those also have limits on the m
ic fields, but those limits are mostly effc
make sure that new lines generate no I
fields than existing ones. And no
currently limit the fields from disrrit
lines, which carry electricity to indi'
buildings.
Even if EMFs should prove dangc
there is a major stumbling block to dec
what to regulate: "We don't know e:
what the concept of dose should be,'
Thomas Tenforde at Battelle Pacific N
west Laboratory in Richland, Washinj
Laboratory studies have shown that
biological effects of EMFs can vary ir
usual ways as the intensity of the
changes— sometimes a field of one inte
will have an effect, while intensities e
higher or lower have none. This rr
Setting an EMF intensity standard prob
atic, to say the least. "The guidelines wc
for chemical carcinogens are [probably]
appropriate for this agent," savs Ro
McGaughy, who is overseeing a' repori
EMFs and cancer for the Envtranmc
Protection Agency.
In the face of such uncertainty, gov
ments have a number of options, Mor
says. The most common approach so far
been the similarity-based approach, w\
simply means: "Don't do anything to m
the situation worse than it is." New Yc
for example, is preparing ro adopt codes t
will limit magnetic fields from new transn
sion lines to 200 milligauss on the edge
the right-of-way, a limit that was del
mined by measuring the magnetic fields n
existing transmission lines.
Some observers argue, however, that si
standards are meaningless and could dam;
industry. "You're trying to pick a numl
because someone says to pick a number, t
there's no real basis for it," savs Bill Fee:
president of the consulting 'firm Elect
Research and Management in Pittsburg
The danger here, he says, is that once t
precedent exists for setting limits, agenci
or legislatures may well set limits that a
quite expensive to meet without anv pa
back in terms of a healthier environment.
Morgan suggests it should be possible
avoid such problems by using "prude;
avoidance"— doing the relatively easy thinj
to sidestep a risk. "In our private lives," 1
says, "we make these judgments all ti
time." As an example, he tells how he rea
ranged the furniture in his son's bedroom s
that the bed was no longer adjacent to th
point where the electric power cable cam
NEWS & COMMENT 2
A-10
Appendix 2
:r.to the house. "I would not spend
large amounts of money to redesign
my house," Morgan says, "but if it's
something simple, why not?"
Indeed, the idea of prudent avoid-
ance has already been used in at least
one regulator)- case, says attorney
Watson. Last year, the Public Sen-ice
Company of Colorado applied for an
upgrade of an existing transmission
line. During the hearings, Watson
says, "we showed why the utility's
■ xi in designing and routing was
consistent with prudent avoidance."
- ■ - -riradc was approved.
It won't be easy to legislate prudent
■ :.-ircc. Morgan says, since the
U S legal system tends to classify
IS either safe or hazardous. "I
can envision the tort system shoving
wo a position where you have to
limited money to avoid the
Nonetheless, Morgan thinks
aid regulations could be written
sudl ; way to keep the money and
~ spent on limiting EMK expo-
sure to a reasonable level. "You could
probabh- justify spending up to a few
r _sand dollars per person-exposure
; Jed," he says, based on how much is
pent to avoid other hazards and on the
rrent evidence concerning EMFs.
The long-term solution, however, is obvi-
ous to understand the biological effects of
EMFs well enough to know whether a
probxm exists, how bad it is, and what to
do to avoid it, and this means more research.
But research takes money, and there's the
Over the past decade, federal and pri-
vate funding of EMF research has been
spread so thin that there has rarely been
enough even for replications of positive
experiments. "Everybody's working on a
different project," saws biologist Reba
Goodman at Columbia University, who
studies how magnetic fields affect RNA
transcription. "It's crazy. It's the money."
And that seems unlikely to change any
time soon, given the federal budget con-
straints that Congress is wrestling with.
New Jersey's Pallone introduced a bill this
summer that called for a 5-year, $34-million
research program, but it didn't make it out
of committee. And George Brown (D-CA)
offered an amendment to an Environmental
Protection Agency authorization bill to give
the agency $5 million for EME research
from 1991 to 1993, but it, too, went no-
where. That leaves the Department of Ener-
gy as the main federal sponsor of EMF
research, with $3 million in 1990 and a still-
to-bc-dctermined amount for 1991. It could
be anywhere between SI. 7 million and S4
million, says Imrc Gyuk, DOE's program
24
Limited sources. U.S. finding for EMF ward, im km,
mostly through the Electric Power Research Institute and DOE.
manager for EMF research.
Some scientists say that the source of the
funds for EMF research is just as important
as the amount: "Who controls the funds?
That's the only question as I see it." says
Allan Frey. an independent consultant and
long-time researcher into the biological ef-
fects of electromagnetic radiation. To date,
most of the funding for EMF research has
come from agencies that have a real or
perceived tic to the electric power industn
The Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), a private organization funded b\
utility companies, has consistently been the
major funding source for EMF experiments;
this year it will spend S6 million on the
research. In the federal government, most of
the low-frequency EMF work has been paid
for by DOE, which many scientists perceive
as having a pro-energy bias. "Each [of the
major funding agencies] has yen- decided
views," Frey says. "Scientists are concerned
about losing funding if they upset their
sponsors. It's a real fear."
For their pan, the funding agencies deny
they put any pressure on researchers. "We all
want to know the trudi," says Leeka Khei-
fets, an EPRI program manager in charge of
epidemiological studies. And some scientists
agree. "We've been totally left alone to do
this study," says Michael Bracken, a Yale
epidemiologist overseeing an EPRI-fiinded
project on the effects of electric blankets on
pregnant women. "The people we deal with
[at EPRI] are scientists just like we are." If it
I were any other way, Bracken says, he
» would quit.
| But other researchers say they can't
| be oblivious to the source of their
J money. "These are expensive experi-
| ments and we can't afford to lose the
o funding," says one scientist who has
| been in the field for several years.
° That researcher adds diat while the
funding concerns do not affect how
the research is conducted, they do
make a difference, for instance, in how
the results are reported to the media.
"I don't want to come across as some
nut who scares the whole popula-
tion," the researcher says.
As a result, some researchers are
calling for other federal agencies to
play a role in funding EMF research.
One candidate is the Environmental
Protection Agency, which had a small
low-frequency EMF program in the
mid-1980s until budget cuts killed it.
The agency is interested in getting
back into the field, says the EPA's
McGaughy. But that agency too is
subject to political influences that may
play a role in determining its posture
toward EMFs. The report on EMFs
now under revision at EPA provides a case-
in point.
In a preliminary draft of the report, the
authors had concluded that electromagnetic
fields were a "probable human carcinogen,"
a classification that would have made them
subject to a variety of regulations. But
"probable" was weakened to "possible" by
higher-ups in the EPA, and several media
reports suggested White House pressure
was behind the switch. The White House
did sec the preliminary draft, McGaughy
acknowledges, but he savs die decision to
make die change "came from our own m-
housc discussions."
Conversely, observers familiar with the
workings of EPA suggest that politics mav
have had a role in the original "probable
carcinogen" classification. "In the last 1 V 2 to
2 years, [some people at the EPA] have
decided that EMFs are a way to get their
budget jacked up," sav s one university scien-
tist close to the field.' An official in another
government agency analyzes the report this
way: "The original bias was, 'Go find the
dirt— there is a causal connection [between
EMFs and cancer].' Then a bias was put on
top of diat saying, 'It's not all that serious.' "
Perhaps die best candidate for new EMF
funding, many researchers say, would be
one with no previous connection with
EMFs and with a solid track record in
funding basic biological research. These cri-
teria seem to point naturally to the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
SCIENCE, VOL. 250
A-11
Appendix 2
one of the National Institutes of Health. In
the past, NIH has had a reputation among
researchers as not being very receptive to
proposals to study EMFs, but that seems to
be changing. "We do have an interest [in
funding EMF work]," says Anne Sassaman,
director of extramural research and training
at NIEHS, which is located at Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Tw o weeks
ago, Sassaman met with representatives
from several other funding agencies, includ-
ing the EPA and the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as a
"first step" toward funding EMF research,
including a possible "targeted program."
Whoever funds the basic biological re-
search, there is one other funding issue that
must be considered. "If EMFs do pose a
risk, the persuasive evidence could emerge
rather quickly— within 5 to 8 years," Mor-
gan says. "There will then be fairly rapid
pressure to start doing things to avoid EMF
exposure." So if we are to avoid "lots of
dumb, cost-ineffective measures" 5 years
from now, research on lessening EMF expo-
sure needs to start immediatelv.
Some simple steps have already been
worked out. Last year, IBM announced it
had found a way to reduce electromagnetic
radiation from its video display terminals.
Northern Electric, manufacturer of Sun-
beam electric blankets, now makes a blanket
with greatly reduced field strengths. And
most utility companies are arranging the
wires in their high-voltage transmission
lines to reduce the magnetic fields, Feero
says. However, EMFs from local distribu-
tion systems, which have been implicated in
some epidemiological studies as being
linked with childhood leukemia, will be
much harder to reduce, says Frank Young at
EPRI. One major problem is that the
grounding of home electrical svstems to
water pipes or the earth creates a return
circuit independent of the utility wires, and
the current through this grounding svstem
creates EMFs in a complicated fashion.
The utility industry is already beginning
to study how it might solve these problems,
however, and that decision— undertaken
even before the fields are proven to be a
hazard— seems to sum up the entire dilem-
ma over EMFs. This research policy, as
obvious as it seems, could end up costing
power companies a lot of money, Feero
says. "The trouble is, as soon as the industry
comes up with a technique to lower expo-
sure by an order of magnitude, somebody
will force them to do it, even without the
facts [about risks]. Nonetheless, Feero says
the cost of not doing it could prove to be a
lot greater if EMF's do indeed turn out to be
a human carcinogen. "It's a gamble the
industry has to take." ■ Robert Pool
Science, vol. 250, October 5, 1990, © A A AS
A-12
Appendix 3
I Volunii' 7* Issnr 6
University of California at Berkeley
Wellness Letter fifth —
X^prJ l' M,, 'M'«l 'n association » I ■ t- the
The newsletter of nutrition. fitness, and stress manaiwment ^5j?"i^ School ori'uhlir Health
Computers at arm's length
While computer technology has sped forward, our knowledge
£ - : j: its health effects on humans has not kept pace. One potential
- in particular worries scientists and the people who work a(
computers: the risk posed by the electromagnetic radiation emitted
frorr. computer screens — also called video display terminals, or
VDTs. The debate about this risk heated up last year when
Macworld, an independently owned magazine for the users of
' Macintosh computers, reported that cathode-ray-tube VDTs,
- most common type, emit relatively high levels of electromag-
netic fields, which some researchers have associated with an
increased incidence of certain cancers, miscarriages, and birth
d-: r ects. Since millions of workers and entire industries depend on
l mputers, any changes in the way they are used could entail
; - rmous economic and social costs.
What are electromagnetic fields?
Whc rever there's electricity — be it overhead power lines, home
■ppliances, or computers — there are low-frequency electromag-
netic fields (EMFs). These imperceptible energy emissions, lo-
cated at the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum, are produced
by alternating current as it surges in electric wires. As the term
• electromagnetic"suggesls, EMFs have two components, an elec-
tric charge and a magnetic attraction. Low-frequency EMFs are
less blatantly damaging to living cells than higher-frequency
forms of radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, or ultraviolet rays,
which contain more energy.
It is very difficult to determine what subtle effects, if any, low-
frequency fields may have on living tissue over long periods. It is
known that the body 'scells have their own electric fields, and some
laboratory studies have shown that these internal fields can be
disrupted by exposure to even low-energy EMFs. Some scientists
hypothesize that subsequent cell changes — notably in cell mem-
branes, genetic materia], immune function, and/or hormonal and
enzyme activity — may lead to an increased risk of cancer. How-
ever, it's hard to extrapolate from test-tube studies on isolated cells
to human beings living in the real world.
Why single out computers?
Most electric appliances emit EMFs, but exposure to them tends to
be brie f (as with hatr dryers or toasters) and/or at a distance (at least
several feet away, as with TVs). In contrast, millions of people
«wTnf vnT ar ' T^r*' ° f,heir Workin « hours -i'hin a foot or
two of VDTs, which have relatively strong fields
The mechanism by which a VDT displays images on its screen
generates electric and magnetic fields in what are called the verv-
l<™ -frequency (VLF > and extremely-low-frequency (ELF) range
which pass right through the machine's case. If, the magnetic'
fields hat scientists are most concerned about and that are hardest
toshield. Various appliances produce similarenergy fields, but the
distinctive type from VDTs is emitted in sharp bursts-in what's
called a pulsed "sawtooth" pat.ern-which, some researchers
hypothesize, may allow them to have a greater effect on iissue.
A number of studies have looked at the potential health hazard
posed by the long-term exposure of both animals and humans to
low-frequency electromagnetic radiation. Although some studies
have found, for instance, a link between EMFs and increased birth
defects in animals, or an increased risk of cancer (especially
leukemia, lymphomas, and brain cancer) in electrical workers or
even inchildrenlivingnearhigh-voltage power lines.other studies
have found no clear link. Earlier this year the Environmental
Protection Agency concluded that EMFs are "a possible, but not
proven, cause of cancer in people." At this lime, it is impossible to
say whether EMFs pose any risk, and if they do, at what dose.
Concern specifically about VDTs began in the late 1970s, when
reports appeared about computer operators having high rates of
headaches, miscarriages, and other health problems. Yet over the
years, studies on VDTs have yielded contradictory or inconsistent
results. And those that have found an increased incidence of
cancers and birth disorders, for instance, generally suggest that the
risk is statistically small. In Sweden, meanwhile, the government
and labor organizations have set up stringent low-radiation stan-
dards for VDTs. There are no such standards on low-frequency
VDT emissions in the U.S., though some researchers are now ad-
vocating such guidelines.
The only consensus among scientists is that more research
needs to be done. A number of long-term studies are currently
underway (including ones at the University of California at Berkeley
and the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York) and may help
clarify matters.
A-13
\ nliim? 7, Issue fi
University of California at Berkeley
Wellness Letter
^ . UlJJ^a rulilWudli, association Kllhllw
Thr nrwsliM Irr of mil ril inn. Til ness. and si rrss irain.iiremrnt n3'P*> <^ School of PuhHr llrallh
Appendix 3
What to do
Until we know more, it's probably prudent to minimize your
exposure if your work involves heavy computer use. Though the
evidence about birth defects and miscarriages remains inconclu-
sive, pregnant women in particular should take these steps:
Sit farther from the screen — in most cases this is all you have
to do. A few inches can make a significant difference. Electromag-
netic radiation falls off rapidly with distance from the source. Try
to work at least 28 inches (about arm's length) from the screen. The
fields are almost always considerably stronger at the sides and rear
of the machines, so sit at least four feet from your colleagues'
monitors. (Magnetic-field emissions pass through partitions, walls,
and even lead barriers.) In some offices, it may be necessary to
rearrange work stations.
An adjustable computer desk with a shelf that pulls out to hold
the keyboard will let you sit farther from the screen. If you have
trouble reading the screen at that distance, enlarge the type size. If
your computer program can't do this, you can buy a special large-
type program, a magnifying screen, or a pair of eyeglasses that will
let you focus at a distance of 28 inches or more from the screen
(regular reading glasses focus at about 18 inches).
Turn off the VDT when you're not using it but sitting nearby.
Dimming the screen won't reduce the emissions.
Don't fall for the ads for anti-glare screens that claim to
block "radiation." Though these costly devices can block low-
frequency electric fields, a Macworld study found that they don't
block the magnetic fields, which worry scientists most.
Don't trust a bargain-basement EMI" meter to give you an
accurate reading on your computer's emissions. In any case, if you
sit far enough from your VDT, you needn't worry. If you or your
employer nevertheless wants to test your monitors, be prepared to
spend at least several hundred dollars.
When shopping for a new computer
If you're thinking of buying a new VDT, look for one with lower
electromagnetic emissions, such as the following:
'Models that meet the "Swedish standards. "Several American
manufacturers are now marketing "low-radiation" VDTs origi-
nally designed for sale in Sweden, where there are strict specifica-
tions for VDT emissions. Ask the salesperson about them. Thanks
to consumer demand, more such models will undoubtedly be
available soon in the U.S. — apparently at little or no added cost.
• Liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. Nonbacklit LCDs,
which contain no cathode ray tube, generate extremely low mag-
netic fields. They are generally employed in laptop models, but are
also becoming available in some larger models.
• Monochromatic screens. These generally give off less radia-
tion than color monitors. A small monitor, however, doesn't
necessarily emit a weaker field than a large one; an undamaged old
VDT isn't necessarily worse than a new one.
For an information packet and other data about VDTs, contact
the Labor Occupational Health Program at the University of
California at Berkeley (2521 Channing Way, Berkeley, CA 94720;
telephone 415-642-5507).
2 Wellness Letter, March 199!
A- ; ! 4.
Appendix 4
COSH Groups*
(No health and safety activist should be without one.)
Alaska
Alaska Health Project
1818 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Ste. 103
Anchorage, AK 99517
(907) 276-2864
Director: Lawrence D. Weiss
Maine
Maine Labor Group on Health, Inc.
Box V
Augusta, ME 04330
(207) 622-7823
Director: Diana White
California
LACOSH (Los Angeles COSH)
2501 S. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90007
(213) 749-6161
Directors: Bob Villalobos, Chair
Judith Linfield, Staff Coordinator
SACOSH (Sacramento COSH)
c/o Fire Fighters Local 522,
3101 Stockton Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95820
(916) 444-8134 or 924-8060
Secretary: Chris Weinstein
SCCOSH (Santa Clara COSH)
760 North 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 998-4050
Director: Meta Mendel-Reyes
Connecticut
ConnectiCOSH (Connecticut COSH)
P.O. Box 31107
Hartford, CT 06103
(203) 549-1877
Director: Rick Melita
District of Columbia
Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center
410 Seventh Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 543-0005
Director: Brian Christopher
Illinois
CACOSH (Chicago COSH)
37 South Ashland
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 666-1611
Directors: Donald Hank, Chairman
Michael Ross, Staff
Massachusetts
MassCOSH (Massachusetts COSH)
555 Amory Street
Boston, MA 02130
(617)524-6686
Director: Nancy Lessin
Western MassCOSH
458 Bridge Street
Springfield, MA 01103
(413) 247-9413
Michigan
SEMCOSH (Southeast Michigan COSH)
2727 Second Street
Detroit, MI 48206
(313)961-3345
Director: Barbara Boylan
New Hampshire
NHCOSH
c/o NH AFL-CIO
110 Sheep Davis Road
Concord, NH 03101
(603) 224-4789
New York
ALCOSH (Allegheny COSH)
100 E. Second Street
Jamestown, NY 14701
(716)488-0720
Chairperson: Arthur L. Thorstenson
Project Director Linda A. Berlin
CNYCOSH (Central New York COSH)
615 W. Genessee Street
Syracuse, NY 13204
(315)471-6187
Director: Gordon Darrow
* As of November 1990
A-15
Appendix 4
COSH Groups
New York (continued)
ENYCOSH (Eastern New York COSH)
c/o Larry Raf ferry
121 Erie Blvd.
Schenectady, NY 12305
(518) 393-1386
NYCOSH (New York COSH)
275 Seventh Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 627-3900
(914) 939-5612 (Westchester)
(516) 755-2400 (Long Island)
Director: Joel Shufro
ROCOSH (Rochester COSH)
797 Elmwood Avenue, #4
Rochester, NY 14620
(716) 244-0420
Director: Ronald G. Ball
WYNCOSH (Western New York COSH)
450 Grider Street
Buffalo, NY 14215
(716) 897-2110
Director: Roger Cook
North Carolina
NCOSH (North Carolina COSH)
P.O. Box 2514
Durham, NC 27715
(919) 286-9249
Director: Tobi Lippin
Staff: Susan Lupton, Susan Pollitt
Pennsylvania
PhilaPOSH (Philadelphia Project OSH)
3001 Walnut Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215)386-7000
Directors: Jim Moran
Joan Gibson
Rhode Island
RICOSH (Rhode Island COSH)
340 Lockwood Street
Providence, RI 02907
(401) 751-2015
Director: James Celenza
Tennessee
TNCOSH (Tennessee COSH)
1515 E. Magnolia, Suite 406
Knoxville, TN 37917
(615)525-3147
Director: JimTramel
Texas
TexCOSH (Texas COSH)
c/oKarylDunson
5735 Regina
Beaumont, TX 77706
(409) 898-1427
Wisconsin
WisCOSH (Wisconsin COSH)
1334 S. 11th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
(414)643-0928
Director: MarkSchulz
Canada
WOSH (Windsor OSH)
1731 Wyandotte Street, East
Windsor, Ontario N8Y 1C9
CANADA
(519) 254-4192
Director: JimBrophy
A-16
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11